Editorial review policy
This explains how operators are reviewed, how we keep editorial separate from commercial arrangements, and how we fix things when we get them wrong.
Last updated: 1 June 2026
How operators are compared
We review a small set of UK-facing brands against the same criteria: licensing and safety, terms transparency, site usability, payments, game range and support quality. Wherever practical we register, use the cashier, read the full terms and contact support before forming a view, rather than relying on operator marketing.
How scores work
Each brand receives an editorial score out of five that summarises those criteria. The score is a comparison opinion to help you weigh operators against each other. It is not official, not a regulatory mark and not a guarantee of any outcome. You can read the detail on our how we compare page.
Independence from commercial arrangements
We may earn a commission when readers visit an operator through our links. Those arrangements are kept separate from the review process: commission does not buy a higher score, a better write-up or a particular position. We do not let payment processing or operator services influence the editorial criteria we apply.
Accuracy and sources
- We do not publish fabricated user testimonials or invented review counts.
- Review notes are written by our editorial team as opinion, not as verified customer feedback.
- We avoid claims of guaranteed winnings, payouts or approval of any kind.
Updates and corrections
Operators change their terms and tools often, so reviews can fall out of date. We revisit brands periodically and welcome corrections. If you believe something is wrong, let us know through our contact pageand we’ll review it. In all cases, the operator’s own published terms take precedence over anything written here.