How we rate Curaçao casinos and betting sites

The criteria and their weights.

Licence and ownership: 25%. Payments and payout speed: 25%. Bonus terms: 20%. Games for casinos or markets and odds for bookmakers: 15%. Support and complaint handling: 15%. The weights sum to 100% and the score is published out of 5 to one decimal place.

The same method applies across casinos and sportsbooks, with one category swapped so the rating reflects the product being reviewed. A bookmaker is not marked down for having fewer casino games; a casino is not rewarded for a sportsbook if the page is casino-led.

How we verify a licence.

We start with the footer seal or certificate link, then check whether the domain and company name match the certificate information. Old sub-licence wording is not treated as enough by itself. The detailed process is explained in the licence-check guide.

How we test payments.

We look for supported currencies, minimum deposits, withdrawal limits, pending periods, fees and KYC triggers. Where a site supports crypto, we also check coins, confirmation expectations and whether fiat conversion affects bonus balances.

What lowers a score.

Unclear terms, slow or refused withdrawals, no live support, licence mismatch, static certificate images, missing responsible-gambling tools and vague complaint wording all lower the score. Very large bonuses do not compensate for weak operating evidence.

How often we re-review.

Licences are re-checked monthly. Payment and bonus terms are checked when a page is updated, and off-cycle reviews happen after a brand closure, warning pattern, regulator update or reader correction request.

Independence.

Affiliate relationships never buy a rating. The order is based on the same published method for every site, and the content remains clear about risks even where a brand has a commercial link.

How we keep scores comparable.

Scores are only useful if the same evidence is checked in the same order. We do not raise a casino because its bonus is large if the licence trail is weak. We do not raise a bookmaker because it has unusual markets if withdrawal limits are unclear. The method deliberately favours boring evidence over loud marketing.

For casino pages, product quality means games, live casino, mobile lobby and supplier range. For betting pages, product quality means odds, markets, in-play behaviour, settlement rules and bet-history clarity. The swapped category keeps the comparison fair without creating two unrelated scoring systems.

What happens after a reader report.

When a reader reports a licence mismatch, payment delay or misleading term, we first preserve the current page, then check the operator site and update the review if the evidence supports the report. We do not publish private account details, and we do not make accusations from a single unsupported message. The aim is to correct the public guidance quickly while keeping the process fair.

Why the rating does not start with the bonus.

Bonus value is only one part of the method because the largest headline offer can be the hardest to withdraw from. We read wagering, max-bet, max-cashout, country and previous-customer clauses before treating a promotion as valuable. If those rules are hard to find, the offer score falls even when the amount looks generous.

Ratings also avoid false precision. A 4.6 score means the site is stronger than a 4.2 on the checks we publish, not that every reader will have the same experience. Payment method, country rules, account history and document requests can change the practical result for an individual player.

Corrections and re-checks.

When a correction request arrives, we preserve the reader claim, check the live operator page, and update the review only when the evidence supports a change. The process is designed to be fair to readers and operators while keeping outdated licence or payment information off the site as quickly as possible.

We also separate commercial status from editorial status. A brand can be removed from a list if the evidence deteriorates, even when it has an affiliate relationship. The same standard applies in reverse: a useful warning can stay on a page even when it lowers the commercial appeal of the recommendation.

When we cannot verify a claim, we leave it out or describe it as unverified. That is better than filling a card with confident-looking numbers that a reader cannot check. The method is intentionally repeatable: another editor should be able to follow the same steps and reach the same broad conclusion from the same evidence.