How We Compare Similar Sites

What makes a site eligible

A site is compared with a brand only if its record confirms the product people use that brand for: slots, a live casino or table games for a casino; bingo rooms for a bingo site; sports betting for a sportsbook; poker for a poker room. Sharing the product makes a site eligible. It does not make it similar.

A broad label confirms nothing beneath it. A menu line that says “casino games” does not confirm slots, a live casino, table games or any particular game. Confirmation runs upwards only: a documented live game show confirms a live casino.

What makes it similar

Each brand page starts from what the brand's own record documents for its product: live game shows, Megaways or a no-wagering statement at a casino; ball formats or tickets from 1p at a bingo site; a bet builder or in-play betting at a sportsbook; jackpot sit and goes or fast-fold tables at a poker room. These are the page's traits. A trait counts only when both records document it.

Uncommon traits count for more. Each counts for one minus the share of comparable sites (the same or a neighbouring kind of site; casino and slots sites are neighbours) whose records have it, so a promise most casinos make says less than one only two make.

A site is compared in full when it is the same or a neighbouring kind of site, shares at least two of the brand's traits and at least half of their weight, and has a record that describes enough for a written comparison. At most four sites are compared in full on a page, the first four in the order set out below; any others that qualify head the list of more similar sites beneath them, in the same order, and are marked as qualifying. That list holds up to eight sites, more when more qualify.

Two refinements keep the weighting from ruling out a useful comparison. Where fewer than five comparable records exist (888poker, PartyPoker and PokerStars today), a trait every one of them shares would weigh nothing, so the half-the-weight test is not applied there; two shared traits are still required. And on four pages (10bet, Genting Casino, Grosvenor Casinos and The Vic), sites were compared in full after both records were read, although the weight test alone would have left them in the further list; each has a written reason in the project's records.

Ownership, screenshots and how often a brand is searched for never decide whether a site qualifies. Search interest only breaks exact ties in the order, and so, where sites tie for the last full comparison on a page, which of them is written up in full; the others stay at the head of the further list.

Three states, in words

• Yes the site's record documents it
• Not offered the site's record says it does not offer it
• Not documented the site's record does not say; it may still have it

“Not offered” appears only where a record states it. A record that is silent about something gives “Not documented”, and no page says a site lacks something its record does not mention.

What counts as a difference

A difference is named only where both records support it: one documents a feature and the other states it does not offer it, or both state something that can be set side by side, such as ball formats or a range of live table stakes. Where the records support no difference, a comparison says what the two share and what is not documented, and stops there.

A site's own count of its games is printed only as that site's figure. Counts are never compared, ranked or used to choose alternatives.

The order on a page

Sites that share the brand's first trait come first (on MrQ's page, the one other site whose record also says winnings carry no wagering), then the rest by how much of the brand's trait weight they share. The order is not a ranking, and nothing on this site is rated or scored.

Where the records come from

Each record is dated. Most were taken from captures of the sites' own pages, opened and described before anything was written from them, and from structured data kept by earlier projects, never their prose, scores or verdicts. Where a record was too thin to compare, it was refreshed by one fetch of the site's own page; those fetches were made from outside the UK, so the page served may differ in places from what a UK visitor sees, and each such record says so. Licence holders, accounts and domain statuses come from the Gambling Commission's register copy of 5 October 2026.

Every comparison shows both records' dates. Sites change, so check a site itself before relying on a detail.

Offers

No welcome offer is printed as an offer. Where a dated offer's terms bear on a comparison, such as a cap on winnings set against a site's own no-wagering statement, they appear inside that comparison with the date the site showed them. Terms recorded more than 60 days before a page was built are left out. That cut-off acts only when the site is rebuilt and uploaded: nothing on it changes by itself.

Ownership

Each brand page names its licence holder, account and domain status from the register, in a section after every comparison. Brands on one licence are sister sites. A different licence holder is called just that: it does not rule out a common owner, and nothing here says two sites are unconnected.

What this site never does

• Rate, score or rank sites, or give similarity percentages.
• Claim that anyone played, tested, signed up or deposited.
• Link, redirect or send you to a gambling site, or show buttons to visit, play, join or claim.
• Present a similar site as a way around a self-exclusion or a limit. Safer gambling explains how GAMSTOP covers every online gambling company licensed in Great Britain.

How pages are updated, and the record log

The site is rebuilt and uploaded by hand. Nothing changes between uploads. When a record is added or refreshed, its new date appears on every page that uses it, and the log below gains a line.