This site earns a commission when someone opens an account through one of its links. That is worth explaining properly, because the payment model shapes what comparison sites tell you, and almost none of them say so.
The three deal types
- Revenue share. The affiliate takes a percentage of the operator's net revenue from each referred player, usually for the life of the account. The affiliate earns most when the player loses most.
- CPA. A one-off payment per depositing customer. The incentive is volume of sign-ups rather than long-term losses.
- Hybrid. Both, in some proportion.
The conflict, stated plainly
Under revenue share, an affiliate's income rises with the amount referred players lose. That is an uncomfortable alignment and it is the industry norm. It is also why "top ten casino" pages so often rank by commission rate rather than by anything a reader would recognise as quality.
Ask of any comparison site: what would have to be true for this ranking to be honest?
Common tells: no methodology, every listed operator scored above four out of five, the "best" pick changing without explanation, and criticism nowhere on the page. An honest list has to be willing to say something unflattering.
What we do about it here
- The list is alphabetical. There is no ranking to sell.
- No scores. We have not tested these operators and will not invent numbers for them.
- Inclusion depends on one thing: a live Great Britain licence, verifiable in the Commission's register.
- No paid placement, and no removing criticism on request.
That does not make us disinterested — we are paid by the same industry as everyone else. It means the specific lever most affiliate sites pull, selling position, is not available here.
What this costs you
Nothing directly. Commission comes from the operator's marketing budget, not your balance, and the terms you get are the same either way. The cost, if there is one, is to your judgement — which is the argument for reading how any site is paid before trusting what it recommends.