An eight-criterion weighted framework, where every score falls out of a worksheet rather than a gut feel. This page sets out the weights, the criteria, and what truly tells a 7.5 from an 8.2 in practice.
A star rating is easy to give and hard to back up. The number topping the Spinaud review — 4.3 out of 5 — is a weighted average of eight subscores, each drawn from the test data collected across the two-week cycle documented at how we test casinos. The weights are set ahead of time and don't shift per review, and the criteria are the same operator to operator, which is how the system stays comparable over time.
Fixing the weights before the test counts. If they could move review by review, a reviewer could shift a borderline casino either way by loading extra weight onto the criterion where it happens to shine. Fixed weights are the main reason the cons list on the Spinaud page isn't any softer.
| 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 takes the single biggest weight, because the worst outcome at an unlicensed or abusively licensed operator — a seized balance with nowhere to escalate — is far worse than a slow withdrawal or a thin bonus. Withdrawals and bonuses share second, since those are the two spots where an offshore casino most often pulls value from players who didn't read the T&C closely.
Responsible gambling carries a real 10% weight, because a site that deliberately tucks self-exclusion out of reach isn't one worth pointing readers to. This criterion is also the main reason the framework is held against the current Google Quality Rater guidelines and the AU responsible-gambling support structure.
Weighed against four inputs. Is the licence live on the regulator's register? Is the corporate licensee the entity that actually runs the site? Do the T&C carry any red-flag clauses (unilateral T&C changes with no player notice, confiscation for "bonus abuse" left undefined, dormancy fees inside 90 days)? Is the dispute escalation route written down? The rating falls steeply — a full point or more — if any of those come up short.
This is test data, not marketing. Approved-to-account time is timed to the minute over at least two rails. A site that promises "within 24 hours" in the T&C and lands in 2h 39min on PayID scores full here; one that promises "within 24 hours" but takes 36 forfeits the subscore whatever the cover copy claims. Ceilings count too — a A$10,000 weekly limit shaves a fraction of a point for a site built for mid-volume players.
Scored on the math, not the headline. A 125% match to A$1,500 at 40× wagering on the bonus portion needs A$5,000 of turnover before a withdrawal. At 96% RTP that's a A$200 expected theoretical loss — larger than the bonus itself — and the score acknowledges it rather than hide it. Sites running 50× on the combined deposit-plus-bonus fare worse, while zero-wager free spins — like the Dragon Pearls spins logged in the bonus section of the Spinaud review — earn a real positive adjustment.
It's the mix, not the count. A library of 3,000 titles from second-tier studios scores below 1,500 titles across Pragmatic Play, Play'n GO, Hacksaw, Nolimit City and a working Evolution Live feed. Evolution or Pragmatic Live in the lobby is a real lift; their absence a real knock. Mobile parity — the same catalogue on phone and desktop — feeds in here too.
AU-specific rails count. Two-directional PayID is a positive worth real weight — rare on Curaçao offshore sites and the fastest domestic option when it works. Missing Apple Pay and POLi is noted, though POLi's 2022 closure isn't the operator's fault. Crypto support is a plus for readers who want it, and Neosurf running deposit-only is flagged for limiting the withdrawal path when players aren't careful.
An agent who answers specific T&C questions without a script? Plus. One who pastes a link and bails? Minus. 24/7 live chat that's truly 24/7? Plus. No phone line at all? A small minus — most AU players don't miss one, but some do, and the option counts.
Tested across two real devices on two networks. A pokie loading in 3 seconds on home Wi-Fi and 5 seconds on 4G is fine. Anything past 8 seconds on 4G is a problem, since a lot of AU mobile play happens on 4G.
The deposit-limit enforcement test matters. A site that lets you set a A$100 daily cap and then quietly takes a A$150 deposit fails this criterion. The self-exclusion flow matters too — one click and a confirmation beats five screens and a "cooling-off before reactivation" that flips back on by itself after a week.
Each subscore runs 1–10. The final figure is the weighted average, rounded to the nearest tenth and rebased onto a 5-star display where a point equals 0.5 stars. Spinaud's current 4.3/5 comes from a weighted 8.6/10 across the eight criteria.
The worksheet isn't published with each review — readers haven't asked, and it would clutter the page — but it lives in the editorial files and the breakdown is available on request via the editorial contact. If the headline score seems out of step with the narrative beneath it, ask and I'll send the subscores.
A handful of findings force a fixed downgrade regardless of the weighted score. Each is a matter of trust, and the framework won't let them be averaged away:
Spinaud set off none of these during the test cycle. Should that change at a future re-test, the score will move, the cons list will grow, and the update will be dated at the top of the review in line with the editorial policy.
No eight-criterion framework can capture every nuance of every operator. The weights assume an average AU player: mid-stakes pokies, the odd live-dealer round, cards and PayID over crypto, mostly mobile. A high-roller chasing seven-figure progressives weights Game Library differently than I do, and a crypto-only player leans on Payments over PayID. The framework is built for the median reader, not everyone.
The framework is also reworked when the market shifts. "AU-specific rails" was added to the Payments criterion once PayID at offshore sites became meaningful. When the Curaçao LOK reform completes its transition, the Safety & Licensing criterion will likely gain a new sub-input. Changes are versioned and announced; the last revision date sits at the top of this page.
