An eight-criterion weighted framework. Every score is calculated on a worksheet rather than assigned by feel. This page lays out the weights, the criteria, and what separates a 7.5 from an 8.2 in practice.
A star rating is easy to hand out and hard to justify. The figure at the top of the Casiny review, 4.3 out of 5, is the weighted average of eight subscores, each built from the test data gathered over the two-week cycle set out at how we test casinos. The weights are locked in advance and stay the same from one review to the next, and the criteria are identical across operators, which keeps the system comparable over time.
Locking the weights before testing matters. If they could shift from review to review, a reviewer could nudge a borderline casino up or down by loading weight onto whatever it happens to do well. Fixed weights are the main reason the cons list on the Casiny page stays as direct as it is, regardless of the commercial arrangement behind the site.
| Criterion | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Safety & Licensing | 20% | Licence validity, TLS, 2FA availability, T&C fairness, dispute route |
| Withdrawals | 15% | Processing time, rails available, caps, consistency across tests |
| Bonuses & T&C | 15% | Wagering math, max-bet rule, max-cashout cap, game contribution transparency |
| Game Library | 12% | Provider mix, title count, live dealer breadth, mobile parity |
| Payments (deposits) | 10% | Number of rails, AU-specific methods (PayID), deposit speed, fees |
| Customer Support | 10% | Live chat wait time, agent knowledge, hours, channels |
| Mobile Experience | 8% | Browser performance on iOS and Android, mobile cashier, load times |
| Responsible Gambling | 10% | Deposit limits, self-exclusion flow, session alerts, enforcement |
Safety and licensing carries the single largest weight, because the worst-case outcome at an unlicensed or abusively licensed operator, a confiscated balance with nowhere to escalate, is far worse than a slow withdrawal or a thin bonus. Withdrawals and bonuses share second place, since those are the two points where an offshore casino most often takes value from players who skimmed the T&C.
Responsible gambling holds a real weight of 10%, because a site that deliberately buries self-exclusion is not one worth pointing readers to. This criterion is also why the framework is checked against the current Google Quality Rater guidelines and the AU responsible-gambling support structure.
Checked against four inputs. Is the licence active on the regulator's register? Is the corporate licensee the entity actually running the site? Does the T&C contain any red-flag clauses, such as unilateral T&C changes with no player notice, confiscation on "bonus abuse" without defining it, or dormancy fees under 90 days? Is the dispute escalation route documented? If any of those fail, the rating drops sharply, by a full point or more.
This subscore is built from test data rather than marketing copy. Approved-to-account time is measured to the minute on at least two rails. A site that promises "within 24 hours" in the T&C and delivers in 2h 39min on PayID scores full marks here, while one that promises the same and takes 36 hours loses the subscore whatever its cover copy claims. Caps count too, so a A$10,000 weekly ceiling shaves a fraction of a point for a site aimed at mid-volume players.
This subscore is built from the math behind the offer rather than the headline figure. A 125% match that turns a A$100 deposit into A$125 of bonus, at 40× wagering on the bonus part, means A$5,000 of turnover before you can withdraw. At a 96% RTP the expected theoretical loss is about A$200, larger than the bonus itself, and the score reflects that openly. Sites running 50× on the combined deposit-plus-bonus fare worse, while zero-wager free spins, like the Dragon Pearls spins in the bonus section of the Casiny review, earn a genuine positive adjustment.
What matters here is the mix rather than the raw headcount. A library of 3,000 titles from second-tier studios scores below 1,500 titles spanning Pragmatic Play, Play'n GO, Hacksaw, Nolimit City and a working Evolution Live feed. The presence of Evolution or Pragmatic Live is a real lift, and their absence is a real mark-down. Mobile parity, meaning the same catalogue on phone as on desktop, feeds into this score too.
AU-specific rails matter. Two-way PayID is a positive worth real weight, since it is rare on Tobique-licensed offshore sites and is the quickest domestic option when it works. Missing Apple Pay and POLi is noted, although POLi closed in 2023 and that is not the operator's doing. Crypto support is a plus for readers who want it, and Neosurf being deposit-only is flagged because it narrows the withdrawal path for anyone who misses the detail.
An agent who answers specific T&C questions without reading from a script lifts the score, while one who pastes a link and hands off lowers it. Live chat that is genuinely 24/7 helps, and a missing phone line costs a small amount, because most Australian players do not miss a phone line but some do, and the option is a real one.
Tested on two real devices over two networks. A pokie that loads in 3 seconds on home Wi-Fi and 5 seconds on 4G is acceptable. Anything over 8 seconds on 4G is a problem, because a great deal of Australian mobile play happens on 4G.
The deposit-limit enforcement test is central here. A site that lets you set a A$100 daily cap and then quietly accepts a A$150 deposit fails this criterion. The self-exclusion flow matters as well: a single click and a confirmation is far better than five screens and a "cooling-off before reactivation" that simply reactivates by itself after a week.
Each subscore runs from 1 to 10. The final figure is the weighted average, rounded to the nearest tenth and then rebased to a 5-star display where one point equals 0.5 stars. Casiny's current 4.3/5 comes from a weighted 8.6/10 across the eight criteria.
The worksheet is not published on each review, since it clutters the page and readers have not asked for it, but it is held in the editorial files and the breakdown is available on request through the editorial contact. If you think the final score at the top of the main review does not match the narrative underneath, I will send you the subscores.
Some findings trigger a fixed downgrade that is independent of the weighted score. Each one is a question of trust, and the framework will not let a strong showing elsewhere average them away:
Casiny did not trigger any of these during the test cycle. If it does in a future re-test, the score will move, the cons list will grow, and the update will be documented by date at the top of the review in line with the editorial policy.
No eight-criterion framework captures every nuance of every operator. The weights assume an average Australian player: mid-stakes pokies, the occasional live-dealer session, cards and PayID ahead of crypto, and mostly mobile play. A high-roller chasing seven-figure progressives would weight Game Library more heavily than I do, and a crypto-only player would lean on Payments and care less about PayID. The framework is built for the typical reader rather than for every edge case.
The framework is also revised when the market changes. The "AU-specific rails" element was added to the Payments criterion once PayID availability at offshore sites became meaningful. If Tobique tightens its licensing regime in future, the Safety & Licensing criterion will likely gain a new sub-input. Changes are versioned and announced, and the last revision date sits at the top of this page. See about this site and the main Casiny review for context; the terms, privacy policy and cookie policy set out the legal terms, and every page is on the sitemap.
