The six criteria
Every ranking on this site comes from the same six criteria, weighted as shown. The weightings are published because a ranking you cannot audit is just an assertion, and because they are the only way to check an order against the reasoning behind it.
| Criterion | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Cost of clearing the offer | 25% | The turnover multiple, whether it is staged across several deposits, and what it works out to in required turnover on a real deposit rather than in the abstract. |
| What the offer pays | 20% | The match percentage, the ceiling, whether the headline is reachable on one deposit or needs several, and whether the offer is a cash match or a free bet, which are different products. |
| How much is published | 20% | Whether the figure, the code, the multiple and the minimum deposit all exist at source. An operator that publishes its terms can be held to them. One that does not, cannot. |
| Georgia access | 20% | Whether the operator's own excluded-state instructions reach Georgia, and how wide its restriction footprint is elsewhere. |
| Cost of entry | 10% | The minimum deposit. Weighted up rather than treated as trivia, because it is the amount a reader can test an operator with before committing anything. |
| Deposit constraints | 5% | Whether the account is restricted to cryptocurrency, which is a hard barrier for most readers rather than a preference. |
How the work is actually done
Most of it is documentary, and we would rather describe it plainly than dress it up. The brands, the running order and the affiliate links come from our own operator lineup. The welcome figures, codes, turnover multiples and minimum deposits come from a bonus source whose rows were last updated on 25 February 2026, and we print that date beside the figures rather than presenting them as evergreen. The excluded-state instructions come from the same lineup, dated per row. Where a figure is not published anywhere we can cite, we write that it is not published instead of estimating it.
The legal material is separate work and a separate standard. Statute citations, vote counts, bill numbers and procedural dates come from primary sources or from named outlets, and every one of them appears on the page with its date attached. Where published accounts conflict, we attribute rather than pick a winner.
What we deliberately do not score
- Withdrawal timings. Nobody has timed a withdrawal at any of these fifteen operators, us included, and we will not reprint a duration we cannot trace to a dated test. There is therefore no processing window anywhere on this site, in either direction.
- Odds and pricing. We hold no dated odds feed. Competitor pages carry live futures prices that are stale within days of publication, and a price we cannot date is worse than no price.
- Which licence a named brand holds. Every operator here is licensed outside the United States, and we say so. We do not attribute a specific licence to a specific brand, because we have not checked these licences against the issuing regulators' own registers on a date we could give you. An unverified licence attribution is the most damaging error this kind of page can make.
- Loyalty and VIP schemes, which are discretionary rather than contractual at these operators and are therefore not a reason to choose one.
How a distinguishing claim gets tested
Three checks, and they are the reason several obvious-looking claims are absent from the money page. Before we call anything a brand's edge, we count how many brands on the lineup the claim describes: if it is most of them, it is the market default rather than a distinction, and swapping which brand gets the label cannot fix it. Before we write the only or the largest or the lowest, we count the rows. And every superlative has to be defensible from the table with its qualifier attached, which is why the biggest ceiling on our lineup is described as the biggest dollar ceiling: one offer is priced in bitcoin and cannot be compared against a dollar figure.
Ratings and the merit curve
Star ratings sit on a descending curve across the whole lineup rather than being awarded in isolation, so a 4.8 means first of fifteen on these criteria and not an absolute score.
The five reviews carry sub-scores marked out of ten, and they use the criteria above under exactly the names above: Cost of clearing the offer, What the offer pays, How much is published, Georgia access and Cost of entry. That is five of the six. The sixth, Deposit constraints, is not scored out of ten on a card because it is not a matter of degree: an operator either takes cryptocurrency only or it does not, so it is carried as a flag on the card and in the comparison table instead. Reading a sub-score against this table should reconcile exactly, which is the point of publishing both.
What a ranking here is not
It is not a statement that any operator is licensed in Georgia, because none is. It is not a statement that using one is lawful: Georgia's own statute names a misdemeanour for the person placing the bet, which is set out in full on the money page. And it is not a safety rating. We rank published terms against each other. That is a narrower thing than most pages in this market claim to do, and it is the thing we can actually stand behind.
Independence
Some links on this site are commercial and are marked as such at the foot of every page. Commercial terms do not reach the people writing, no operator has ever been moved up for paying more, and no operator sees a review before it publishes. If an operator's terms get worse, its position falls.
Corrections
Welcome figures move. Excluded-state lists move. Bills change between drafts. If something here is out of date or wrong, write to [email protected] with the page and the operator or the bill number, and we will re-check it against source and re-date the row.