Our method
Here is how the table above is produced. No position is assigned by hand: each one is computed from facts with a source, using the criteria and weights set out below. Those are identical on every site we run, so no platform can be lifted by tuning them for a single page.
The criteria, and what each is worth
| Criterion | Weight | Better when |
|---|---|---|
| Anonymity (no KYC) | 3.0 | lower is better |
| Withdrawal speed | 2.5 | lower is better |
| Cryptocurrencies accepted | 2.0 | higher is better |
| Licence | 2.0 | higher is better |
| Sports covered | 1.5 | higher is better |
| Minimum deposit | 1.0 | lower is better |
| Welcome bonus | 0.5 | higher is better |
Next steps from here: Stake, then No KYC explained.
How the number is reached
Comparison is always against the other platforms, never against an imagined benchmark: best in column takes 1, worst takes 0, the rest sit proportionally in between. Multiply by the weights above, divide by the total weight of the criteria known for that platform, and that is the score out of five.
Incomplete records
If we know fewer than 3 criteria for a platform, it is set aside under insufficient data instead of being ranked. A platform we have not managed to document would otherwise land at the bottom and be read as the worst, which would describe our research rather than the platform.
Where a value is unknown the cell holds a dash — not an estimate — and the criterion drops out of the score instead of counting as zero.
Sources, dates and money
No value enters the ranking without a named source and the date we checked it. Figures drawn from independent reviews rather than a platform's own pages are marked as such and re-checked before publication.
Opening an account through a link here pays us a commission. It does not buy a place: the weights above are fixed and the calculation is identical for every platform.