UK casino reviews of every licensed brand, starting with the licence

04 The four companies that run the most UK gambling domains

Grouped by licence, the plot above stops being a list and starts being a shape. The four darkest blocks are four companies, and between them they license 53 of the 139 brands we cover: White Hat Gaming Limited with 19, Skill On Net Limited with 12, Jumpman Gaming Limited with 11 and ProgressPlay Limited with 11.

Domain counts go further still. The register lists every website a licensee has declared, and Jumpman Gaming Limited declares 227 of them under one account — against the 11 we know by name. Across the full register we read 2,664 licensed businesses and 2,135 declared gambling domains. The British online casino market is far more concentrated than its shopfront suggests.

05 What the Gambling Commission register does and does not tell you

The register is authoritative on a specific list of things, and silent on everything else. It tells you the licensee's legal name, its account number, its registered address, its licence status, the date of issue and the domains it has declared. Those facts are as good as facts get: they come from the regulator, they are dated, and anyone can check them in a browser without an account.

It tells you nothing about whether a casino pays quickly, answers email, sets fair limits or treats a complaint well. It does not rate anyone. It will not tell you that two brands are commercially connected beyond sharing an account, nor which brand a given domain belongs to. Where this site makes a claim beyond the register, it says which document the claim came from.

06 Why the register cannot be searched by brand name

This is the practical failure that makes the rest of the site necessary. The register's search matches the names of licensed businesses. It does not match brand names and it does not match domains. Searching it for a casino you are actually considering returns nothing — not "unlicensed", not "no result for this brand", simply nothing — and a reasonable person reads that as a warning sign when it is nothing of the kind.

Our lookup tool closes exactly that gap and nothing more. It indexes every licensee in the register together with every domain each has declared, so a brand or a domain resolves to a company. When it finds nothing it says which three different things that could mean, because a tool that answers "not found" as though it meant "unlicensed" would be making the same mistake in the opposite direction.

07 What we check on every brand, in order

Each entry runs through the same sequence, and the order is deliberate: the things that are verifiable against a primary source come first, the operator's own claims come second, and our reading comes last. It inverts the way that online casino reviews are usually built, with the verdict arriving first and the evidence arranged behind it. The licence block is first because it is the only part backed by the regulator directly. Then the money: what it takes to open, what it takes to get out, how long verification runs and what it costs. Then the company's other brands, because that is context no operator supplies.

Two fields are too sparse across the market to belong in a template. A maximum deposit is stated by roughly half the brands we list — 67 of 139 — and loyalty scheme detail by fewer. Where a value is missing the page says so rather than rendering an empty row, because a blank cell reads as a zero and a zero here would be a false statement.

08 Deposit floors compared, and who sets them

Deposit minimums cluster hard. Of the brands we list, 95 state £10, 23 state £5 and 15 state £20, which makes £10 the British standard and anything lower a deliberate positioning choice. The floor is nearly always a platform decision rather than a brand one: sister brands on the same licence tend to share the same figure, which is another way of seeing that the company, not the casino, is making the call.

The advertised figure is also not always the one that applies. Pay-by-phone and pay-by-mobile routes frequently carry a percentage charge or a flat fee, disclosed in the terms rather than on the deposit screen, and on some brands that fee applies to withdrawals as well. Our deposit pages quote the fee text as published rather than summarising it, because summarising it is how the detail gets lost.

09 Withdrawals: the window, and who misses it

Stated withdrawal windows spread much wider than deposits. 6 brands state something under 24 hours, 36 state one to three days, and 72 — the largest single group by a distance — state four to seven. Those are the operators' own numbers, and the honest thing to say about them is that they are claims rather than measurements.

What matters as much as the window is when it starts. Nearly every brand begins counting after identity checks are complete, not when the withdrawal is requested, and verification is where first-time withdrawals actually stall. A UK licensee cannot pay out without verifying identity and age; that is a licence condition. Any site advertising withdrawal without verification is telling you it holds no British licence.

10 What "licensed in the UK" actually protects

A Gambling Commission licence buys a specific set of protections, and it is worth being precise about them, because both overstating and understating them mislead. Player funds must be held under a stated protection level. Age and identity verification is mandatory before play and before withdrawal. Participation in the national self-exclusion scheme is mandatory. Deposit limits, reality checks and self-exclusion tools must be available. Complaints must route to an approved alternative dispute resolution provider, free to the player.

What it does not do is guarantee that you will be treated well, that a dispute will be decided your way, or that funds are insured in the way a bank deposit is. It also does not follow you offshore: a company holding a British licence for its British site can run other sites, under other regulators, where none of the above applies.

11 What we could not verify, and why we publish that too

Every review closes with a table of three states: verified against the register, verified against the operator's published terms, and not verified. The third state is marked in the site's own accent colour, which is used nowhere else. That is a deliberate inversion — the one place a site normally reaches for a highlight is its strongest claim, and here it marks the row an operator would prefer buried.

The build enforces it. A review page with no unverified row at all fails to compile, because a review in which everything checked out is not a review, it is a brochure.

12 Where the money comes from, and what it cannot buy

Nothing on this site is monetised. There are no affiliate links, no paid placement, no commercial arrangement with any operator named here, and no operator has been given sight of a page before publication. Ordering is by company, never by what a brand pays, for the simple reason that nothing pays.

Saying that once, here, is deliberate. A per-page disclosure repeated across 51 pages where every single one is unmonetised becomes wallpaper rather than information. If a commercial relationship ever exists, the affected pages will carry it individually and this paragraph will change in the same release.

13 Check any of this yourself

Every licence claim on this site can be checked in under a minute, and we would rather you did. Take the company name from any review, open the Gambling Commission's public register, search that name, and compare the account number, the registered office and the issue date with ours. Then open the same licensee's domain list and see how many gambling websites it declares.

Two habits are worth keeping when you do. Search the company, never the brand — the register will not find the brand. And carry the date: our figures were read 31st July 2026, licences move, and a number without a reading date has quietly stopped being checkable.