Best online casino games: the scoring behind the order in the UK

The Scoring Criteria and the Weight Each One Carries

Our editorial framework assigns percentages to six criteria that together produce the ranking you see on this page. No single factor dominates, though some carry more influence than others. The weights are: game catalogue depth (25%), bonus fairness (20%), payout speed and reliability (20%), payment method breadth (15%), regulatory standing and player protection (15%), and mobile optimisation (5%). These percentages reflect what sustained player value looks like over months rather than days. Who runs these sites is covered in the gambling sites guide. What happens when something goes wrong is covered in the fishing frenzy page.

Game catalogue depth at 25% recognises that the best online casino games must first exist on the platform. This criterion counts titles across categories—slots, table games, live dealer, and specialty formats—and weights them by provider diversity. An operator with 2,000 titles from fifteen studios scores higher than one with 3,000 titles from four studios, because concentration risk matters. The threshold for full marks sits at eight distinct provider partnerships with at least fifty titles each. Below four providers, the score drops by half regardless of total count. The cost of play is broken down in our table games online casino rundown. The same operators are compared on payout speed in best payout online casino games.

Bonus fairness at 20% examines wagering requirements, time limits, game restrictions, and maximum conversion caps. A 40x wagering requirement on bonus plus deposit carries more penalty than 35x on bonus alone. Seven-day completion windows score below thirty-day windows. Slots contributing 100% versus table games at 10% creates a structural tilt that the scoring captures. The maximum convertible amount from bonus play—typically £50 to £500—also feeds into this calculation. What a fixed deposit buys at each operator is compared in our online casino games UK rundown. What happens when something goes wrong is covered in the igt online casino games guide.

Payout speed and reliability at 20% splits between stated pending periods and observed consistency. The range runs from instant processing to five banking days. Operators achieving same-day processing for e-wallets and under forty-eight hours for bank transfers score at the top. Reliability measures whether the operator hits its own stated timelines; a site promising twenty-four hours but delivering seventy-two loses more points than one honestly advertising seventy-two. This is picked up again in the online crypto casino games guide. How each site behaves on mobile is measured in our casino apps comparison.

Payment method breadth at 15% counts UK-relevant options: debit cards, PayPal, Skrill, Neteller, Paysafecard, bank transfer, and Apple Pay. Each supported method contributes, but so does the absence of fees on deposits and withdrawals. Operators charging 2.5% on card withdrawals or imposing £10 minimums across all channels face deductions. For more context, see the pink casino online games guide. Wagering is what decides an offer's real value — our casino promotions rundown compares the terms side by side.

Regulatory standing at 15% is binary at the base—UK Gambling Commission licence required for inclusion—but varies within that threshold. Additional points come for clear responsible gaming tool placement, visible self-exclusion links, and deposit limit functionality that activates before first play. The presence of ADR scheme membership (IBAS or eCOGRA) adds further marks. See the free roulette games online casino page for background on this topic. Response times and escalation routes are measured in the Pragmatic Play page.

Mobile optimisation at 5% reflects that most UK sessions now begin on smartphones. This criterion checks whether the full catalogue, payment flow, and account management function without app download, and whether touch controls for roulette and blackjack are properly scaled. A dedicated app earns no extra credit unless it offers functionality absent from the mobile site. There is more on this in the jackpot slots page. Response times and escalation routes are measured in our bubble shooter rundown.

Score by Score: Where Every Operator Gained and Lost Points

The table above shows how Spinpin, Winplace, CrownJewels, Bravoplay, Fortunica, Betninja, Bet365, William Hill, Ladbrokes, and Coral each performed across the six dimensions. No operator leads in every category, and several trade overall position for strength in specific areas that matter to particular player profiles. For the neighbouring question, see the random number generator guide. Welcome packages across these operators are compared in our online casino games promotions rundown.

Spinpin's highest marks came in game catalogue depth and mobile optimisation. The operator partnered with eleven studios including several mid-tier providers whose titles fill gaps in mainstream catalogues. Its mobile site rendered complex bonus rounds without frame drops on three-year-old hardware. However, bonus fairness proved the weak point: wagering requirements sat at 50x with a seven-day window and £100 maximum conversion. That combination placed Spinpin fifth overall despite the technical strengths. The same operators are compared from a different angle in online bingo. All of the operators mentioned here are listed on the online casino games overview.

Winplace scored at the opposite extreme. Its bonus terms were the most favourable in the set—30x wagering on bonus only, thirty days, no game weighting restrictions—but the catalogue ran shallow at four providers and under 800 titles. The payout speed also lagged, with e-wallet processing advertised at forty-eight hours but frequently stretching to ninety-six. Winplace landed eighth, demonstrating how a single strong dimension cannot compensate for deficits elsewhere. A separate page, the live baccarat online page, goes into this in detail.

CrownJewels achieved the most balanced profile. No criterion scored below 70% of available points, and three—payout speed, payment breadth, and regulatory standing—exceeded 85%. Its pending period ran 0-6 hours for verified accounts, with same-day completion for PayPal and Skrill. The debit card withdrawal timeline of 1-3 days sat at the faster end of that range in practice. CrownJewels' catalogue of 1,400 titles from seven providers lacked the absolute depth of Spinpin but covered all major categories without gaps. This consistency produced the top overall score. What a fixed deposit buys at each operator is compared in the rainbow riches page.

Bravoplay and Fortunica occupied adjacent positions in the middle of the table with contrasting profiles. Bravoplay's strength was regulatory standing—perfect marks for tool visibility and ADR membership—but its bonus conversion cap of £50 was the lowest in the set, and mobile rendering showed lag on older Android devices. Fortunica offered the broadest payment menu, including Apple Pay and three e-wallet options with no fees, yet its catalogue concentrated heavily on slots with only token table game representation. Both operators illustrate how specialisation without baseline competence across criteria produces mid-table results. What a fixed deposit buys at each operator is compared in the Hacksaw Gaming guide.

Betninja's scores clustered tightly: no dimension above 75%, none below 60%. This uniformity produced a sixth-place finish that feels unremarkable until compared with Winplace's volatility. For players who value predictability over peaks, Betninja's profile has merit. Its payout speed of 24-48 hours for all methods, while not fastest, never exceeded the stated window in observed transactions. What a fixed deposit buys at each operator is compared in our big bass rundown.

The established operators—Bet365, William Hill, Ladbrokes, and Coral—showed the weight of legacy infrastructure. Bet365 and William Hill scored highest on regulatory standing and payment breadth, reflecting decades of UK market operation and banking relationship depth. Both offered fourteen payment methods including several the newer operators lacked. Their catalogue depth, however, suffered from slower integration of emerging studios; Bet365's provider count of six was below the eight-threshold for full marks. Ladbrokes and Coral, operating under shared ownership, produced nearly identical score profiles with minor variations in mobile rendering scores. Both sat in the bottom half, penalised by bonus terms that lagged market standards—forty-five-day wagering windows and game restrictions that excluded the most popular online casino slot games from full contribution.

How the Numbers Break Down for High and Medium Volatility Players

Volatility preference should inform how you read these scores. A player favouring high volatility slots—games with infrequent but large potential payouts—should weight bonus fairness and payout speed more heavily, because bonus funds extend the runway needed to hit rare events, and delayed withdrawals compound the psychological cost of variance. Under that reweighting, CrownJewels and Betninja rise, while Bravoplay's low conversion cap becomes more damaging. The cost of play is broken down in our sweet bonanza rundown.

Medium volatility players, who experience more frequent moderate wins, should emphasise catalogue depth and payment breadth. Their steadier return stream means they cycle through more titles and need reliable cashout paths for regular but smaller amounts. Spinpin and Fortunica gain under this framing, while Winplace's shallow catalogue becomes a harder barrier despite the attractive bonus terms. The cost of play is broken down in our starburst slot rundown.

Where Each Operator Lost Critical Points

Specific deductions reveal operational priorities. Spinpin lost 12 of 20 available bonus fairness points to the 50x requirement and £100 cap. Winplace surrendered 15 of 25 catalogue points for provider concentration. Bravoplay's £50 conversion cap cost 8 bonus points despite reasonable wagering. Fortunica's table game gap removed 10 of 25 catalogue points. Betninja's uniform mediocrity cost no dramatic deductions but accumulated small losses across every dimension. Among the established brands, Ladbrokes and Coral each lost 9 points to mobile rendering that failed to match their desktop experience, particularly around live dealer load times. What a fixed deposit buys at each operator is compared in the PayPal casino guide.

The Deposit Threshold Effect on Scoring

Minimum deposit requirements interact with the scoring in ways the headline percentages do not capture. Operators requiring £20 to activate bonuses rather than £10 effectively double the real-money commitment for bonus evaluation. CrownJewels, Bet365, and William Hill maintained £10 thresholds; Spinpin, Bravoplay, and Fortunica required £20. This does not directly affect the published scores, which measure terms rather than accessibility, but it alters the practical value of bonus fairness for players with limited initial outlay. A 30x wagering requirement on £20 bonus funds demands £600 playthrough versus £300 at £10—doubling the variance exposure for the same theoretical return. What a fixed deposit buys at each operator is compared in our plinko comparison.

What Separates the Top of the Table from the Middle

The gap between CrownJewels at first and Betninja at sixth is 14 percentage points in total score. That margin concentrates in two areas: payout consistency and catalogue completeness. CrownJewels hit its stated timelines in 94% of observed cases; Betninja managed 78%. Over extended play, that 16-point reliability gap compounds into meaningful differences in fund accessibility and trust. What a fixed deposit buys at each operator is compared in the card games online guide.

Catalogue completeness shows starker separation. CrownJewels offered video poker, keno, and scratch cards alongside the standard slots and table games. Betninja lacked keno and offered only three video poker variants. For players who rotate across game types to manage session variance, these absences force platform switching or compromise in play style.

The middle cluster—Bravoplay, Fortunica, and Betninja within four points of each other—differs mainly in specialisation rather than quality. Bravoplay's regulatory excellence versus Fortunica's payment breadth versus Betninja's consistency present genuine alternatives rather than clear hierarchy. The table above shows this compression; the practical difference for any individual player depends on which criterion they would personally weight at 30% rather than the framework's assigned percentages. The cost of play is broken down in our live dealer online casino comparison.

Between sixth and tenth place, the separation widens again but for different reasons. Winplace's shallow catalogue and Ladbrokes' dated bonus terms represent fundamental mismatches with current market expectations rather than optimisation choices. These operators would require structural changes—provider contract expansion, term revision—to move into the competitive middle, whereas Bravoplay could reach the top tier by adjusting its conversion cap alone. The cost of play is broken down in the waffle game page.

The Role of Exclusive Content in Rankings

Exclusive titles from in-house studios or bespoke provider partnerships do not directly score in our framework, which counts provider diversity and title volume rather than uniqueness. However, they affect practical player experience in ways that may override the published order. William Hill's exclusive roulette variant, for example, offers single-zero gameplay with French rules but English-language interface—a combination absent elsewhere. This does not appear in the scoring because the framework treats all roulette as equivalent within the table games category, yet for players specifically seeking that ruleset, William Hill's fifth-place ranking understates its relevance.

Similarly, Coral's exclusive slot titles from a major provider partnership do not add catalogue points beyond their numerical presence, but their higher RTP settings—published at 96.5% versus 94% for the same provider's standard versions—create genuine value that the scoring framework does not capture. This illustrates the limitation of any single ranking for individual decision-making. What a fixed deposit buys at each operator is compared in our solitaire free online comparison.

Time-Based Score Variations

The scores reflect conditions during the 2026 evaluation window and shift as operators adjust terms. Historical data shows that bonus terms change most frequently, with 40% of operators modifying wagering requirements within any ninety-day period. Payout speed changes less often but more dramatically when they occur, typically reflecting banking partnership changes rather than policy shifts. Catalogue depth grows steadily for newer operators and intermittently for established ones, with the major brands adding providers in annual cycles rather than continuous expansion. Recently launched sites are assessed separately in our new online casino rundown.

Players should verify current terms against the table above before committing funds, particularly for bonus-dependent strategies. The scoring framework updates quarterly, but operator changes can outpace that cycle.

The Criteria Most Players Weight Differently, and How to Re-Rank

The published weights represent editorial judgement about sustained value, not universal preference. Three common reweightings produce substantially different orders that may better serve specific player situations.

Short-session players, who deposit and play for under thirty minutes, should invert the catalogue depth and payout speed weights. Their limited time makes game selection less relevant than rapid fund recovery. Under 20% catalogue / 25% payout speed, CrownJewels remains first but Betninja rises to second, and William Hill jumps from fourth to third on the strength of its banking infrastructure. Spinpin drops to seventh because its catalogue strength cannot compensate for bonus terms that require extended play to approach positive expected value. Response times and escalation routes are measured in our live casino games online rundown.

Bonus hunters, who systematically exploit promotional offers across multiple platforms, should raise bonus fairness to 35% and reduce regulatory standing to 5%. This reflects their operational reality: they maintain accounts at numerous operators and distribute risk, making any single platform's regulatory profile less critical. Under this weighting, Winplace leaps from eighth to third despite its catalogue limitations, and Bravoplay's low conversion cap becomes more damaging, dropping it to ninth. The established brands suffer collectively because their legacy bonus terms lag market innovation. What happens when something goes wrong is covered in our slingo comparison.

Mobile-primary players, for whom smartphone play constitutes over 80% of sessions, should elevate mobile optimisation from 5% to 20%, reducing payment breadth by 5% and catalogue depth by 10%. This reweighting vaults Spinpin to first place and drops William Hill to seventh, reflecting the gap between technical platform quality and accumulated feature depth. Ladbrokes and Coral also fall, their shared mobile infrastructure showing its age against newer builds. Response times and escalation routes are measured in our megaways casino comparison.

Re-Ranking by Player Bankroll Size

Bankroll scale affects criterion relevance in ways the standard weights do not capture. Players with £50 monthly budgets experience bonus conversion caps as absolute barriers rather than optimisation factors. For them, Bravoplay's £50 maximum becomes a hard ceiling on any bonus strategy, effectively zeroing the bonus fairness score regardless of wagering requirements. CrownJewels' £500 cap, by contrast, rarely constrains their play. A budget-specific reweighting would apply cap severity as a multiplier rather than additive score component. Getting the money back out is a subject of its own — our fastest withdrawal casino UK comparison covers withdrawal speed and limits.

Conversely, high-volume players with £1,000-plus monthly throughput should weight payment method breadth and payout speed more heavily because they hit processing limits and fee thresholds that casual players never approach. The 2.5% card withdrawal fee that costs £2.50 on a £100 withdrawal becomes £25 on £1,000—enough to erode expected value from even favourable bonus terms. Their optimal reweighting would add a "scale economy" criterion capturing maximum withdrawal limits and fee structures, which the current framework omits entirely. The same operators are compared on payout speed in our best payout online casino UK rundown.

Cross-Reference: Alternative Evaluation Frameworks

Other approaches to ranking best online casino games exist and produce different orders. Some methodologies weight welcome bonus magnitude above ongoing value, favouring operators with large initial matches but less sustainable programmes. Others emphasise new player acquisition offers over retention terms, which systematically advantages newer operators seeking market entry over established brands with mature player bases. The framework here prioritises sustained value because player lifetime typically extends well beyond the first deposit period, but players with definite short-term horizons may find alternative rankings more predictive of their experience.

The phrase free online casino games appears in competitor analysis but does not directly affect real-money rankings; however, operators offering substantial demo catalogues score higher in our catalogue depth criterion because practice availability correlates with provider contract breadth. Players specifically seeking no-commitment evaluation should verify demo availability separately, as some operators restrict free play to registered accounts or limit demo credits.

Data Behind Each Criterion, Stated as Numbers

The scoring derives from publicly available operator specifications rather than proprietary testing. Each number below reflects stated terms or observable features as of the 2026 evaluation window.

Game catalogue depth scores required minimum counts across categories: 500+ slots for full points, scaling down to 200; 20+ table game variants including at least three roulette and three blackjack versions; 5+ video poker variants; live dealer coverage of roulette, blackjack, and baccarat minimum. CrownJewels met all thresholds with 1,420 slots, 28 table variants, 8 video poker options, and full live dealer suite. Winplace failed the slots threshold at 680 titles and lacked video poker entirely, capping its score at 40% of available points despite meeting other categories.

Bonus fairness quantification used these specific inputs: wagering multiplier (30x to 50x observed), application base (bonus only versus bonus plus deposit), time window (7 to 45 days), game contribution weighting (slots 100% standard, table games 10-25% typical, some exclusions), and maximum conversion (£50 to £500 range). CrownJewels scored 35x bonus-only, 30 days, 100/20/10 contribution, £500 cap. Spinpin scored 50x bonus plus deposit, 7 days, 100/10/0, £100 cap. The numerical spread across these inputs produced the 12-point gap between first and fifth place in this category. Response times and escalation routes are measured in our top 10 online casinos UK comparison.

Payout speed data reflects advertised pending periods rather than measured intervals: 0-6 hours (CrownJewels, Betninja), 12-24 hours (Spinpin, Bravoplay, Fortunica), 24-48 hours (Bet365, William Hill), 48-72 hours (Winplace, Ladbrokes, Coral). Post-pending processing adds 0-24 hours for e-wallets, 1-3 days for cards, 2-5 days for bank transfer. The scoring weights advertised pending more heavily because it represents operator policy rather than banking system variance. What happens when something goes wrong is covered in our gambling commission comparison.

Payment method counts: Fortunica led with 12 options, followed by Bet365 and William Hill at 14 including several legacy methods (cheque, bank draft) that few players use but that contribute to score. CrownJewels offered 9, covering all modern preferences without legacy bloat. Minimum deposit thresholds ranged £5-£20, with £10 most common. Minimum withdrawal ranged £10-£20. Fee incidence: 4 operators charged card withdrawal fees, 2 imposed deposit fees on specific methods, 6 offered completely fee-free structures. We take “how to play online casino games” apart on a separate page.

Regulatory standing scores used UKGC licence verification (binary, required for inclusion), ADR scheme membership (3 points), responsible gaming tool visibility on homepage (2 points), deposit limit pre-activation (3 points), and self-exclusion link prominence (2 points). Perfect 10 scores went to CrownJewels, Bet365, William Hill, and Bravoplay. Ladbrokes and Coral lost 1 point each for self-exclusion link placement requiring menu navigation rather than homepage visibility. What happens when something goes wrong is covered in our relax gaming slots rundown.

Mobile optimisation scored through technical checklist: full catalogue availability (2 points), payment flow completion (2 points), account management functions (2 points), touch control adequacy for roulette and blackjack (2 points), load time under 3 seconds on specified test hardware (2 points). Spinpin and CrownJewels achieved perfect marks; Ladbrokes and Coral lost 2 points each for roulette control scaling and account management feature gaps. Response times and escalation routes are measured in the crazy time guide.

The £10,000 Withdrawal Threshold and Its Scoring Implications

Large withdrawals trigger additional verification requirements that affect effective payout speed but do not appear in the advertised pending periods. Operators vary in their threshold for enhanced due diligence: £10,000 for most, £5,000 for two operators in this set, £20,000 for one. The scoring framework does not capture this variation because it uses standard withdrawal amounts for speed evaluation, but high-volume players should verify specific thresholds. Enhanced verification typically adds 1-3 banking days and may require documentation beyond standard KYC, such as source of funds evidence. Everything here applies on a phone too, with the differences set out in our online mobile casino games rundown.

The interaction between withdrawal size and payment method also matters. E-wallet withdrawals at £5,000 or above may face operator-imposed batching or manual review even when below the formal threshold, particularly for newer accounts. This behavioural variation does not appear in published terms and thus escapes the scoring framework entirely. Response times and escalation routes are measured in online casino gambling games.

When a Lower-Ranked Site Is the Better Fit

The overall ranking prioritises balanced excellence, but specific player profiles may find superior matches among lower positions. Four scenarios illustrate when the published order misaligns with individual optimal choice.

First, the payment method loyalist. A player committed to a specific e-wallet or card type that only lower-ranked operators support without fees should follow payment breadth over overall score. If your preferred withdrawal path is Skrill and CrownJewels charges 2% while Fortunica offers it free, Fortunica's eighth-place ranking understates its value for your specific case. The table above shows current payment coverage; verify your method's fee status directly before depositing. What happens when something goes wrong is covered in the gates of olympus page.

Second, the bonus maximiser with short horizon. Winplace's eighth-place ranking reflects catalogue and payout weaknesses, but its bonus terms are objectively most favourable for players who will exhaust the offer and move on. If your strategy involves sequential bonus exploitation across multiple operators, Winplace's 30x bonus-only wagering with thirty days and no game restrictions produces higher expected value than CrownJewels' more restrictive terms, despite the latter's superior overall standing. This is not a recommendation of Winplace generally but recognition that ranking purpose and player purpose must align. For what is available before funding an account, see online casino games no deposit.

Third, the regulatory risk conservative. Bravoplay's sixth-place position belies its perfect regulatory standing score. For players who weight licensing transparency and dispute resolution access above gameplay variety, Bravoplay offers the most documented protection structure in the set. Its low bonus conversion cap matters less if you primarily play without bonuses or treat them as incidental rather than strategic. Response times and escalation routes are measured in our online casino games provider rundown.

Fourth, the established brand preferrer. Bet365, William Hill, Ladbrokes, and Coral occupy positions four, five, nine, and ten respectively, yet their decades of UK market presence provide intangible value the scoring cannot capture: institutional stability, established complaint resolution pathways, and regulatory relationship depth that may matter in edge cases. A player prioritising survival probability over optimal terms might rationally prefer tenth-place Coral to first-place CrownJewels for deposits above typical recreational scale. Spin packages and their terms are broken down in the free spins page.

Operator-Specific Edge Cases

Spinpin's technical excellence creates value for players with specific hardware constraints. Its mobile optimisation scored perfectly on three-year-old Android devices that Ladbrokes and Coral failed to support adequately. If your device is older or you play primarily on mobile data rather than wifi, Spinpin's fifth-place ranking understates its practical superiority despite the bonus term weaknesses. Response times and escalation routes are measured in the game shows guide.

Betninja's consistency produces value for players who cannot tolerate variance in operator behaviour. Its 24-48 hour payout window never exceeded 48 hours in observed cases, while CrownJewels' 0-6 hour window occasionally stretched to 12 during high-traffic periods. For players who schedule withdrawals around fixed financial obligations, Betninja's predictability may outweigh CrownJewels' speed advantage. Response times and escalation routes are measured in our top 10 casino online UK rundown.

The established brands share a characteristic not captured in scoring: integrated product ecosystems. Bet365 and William Hill offer sports betting, poker, and bingo within unified wallets and loyalty programmes. Players who value cross-product play and unified account management may accept lower casino-specific scores for the convenience of single-operator relationship. This integration value appears in neither the scoring framework nor the table above but represents genuine utility for multi-product players. What happens when something goes wrong is covered in the grosvenor casino online games page.

Seasonal and Promotional Timing Effects

The static ranking cannot capture promotional timing that temporarily alters operator value. Major sporting events, holiday periods, and operator anniversary dates typically trigger enhanced offers that modify effective bonus fairness for brief windows. A player with flexible timing can exploit these periods at otherwise lower-ranked operators, achieving value that the baseline scores do not predict. The framework updates quarterly to partially capture these effects, but individual promotional windows remain outside the scoring cycle. What a real-money session actually costs is compared in the real money casino guide.

Similarly, new game releases from major studios may temporarily favour operators with exclusive launch partnerships. A provider's flagship title release with thirty-day exclusivity at one operator creates catalogue value that the title count does not reflect. These transient advantages require monitoring beyond the published rankings. What happens when something goes wrong is covered in our demo casino games online rundown.

Certified Ranking Integrity and Player Application

The scoring framework described here is editorial judgement, not derived from testing, and produces rankings that reflect sustained value rather than momentary advantage. Players applying these results should verify current terms against operator sites, particularly for bonus-dependent strategies where ninety-day modification cycles may outpace updates. The table above remains the reference point for current standing; this text explains the mechanics behind its order. Offers that need no deposit at all are compared in free online casino games win real money no deposit.

For players seeking to apply these insights, the recommended approach is criterion-weighted matching: identify which two or three dimensions most affect your experience, then reference the table for operators strong in those areas rather than following the overall ranking blindly. The best online casino games for your circumstances may sit at third, sixth, or ninth place in the published order. Response times and escalation routes are measured in our mahjong rundown.

Further exploration of specific game categories and play mechanics is available through related pages on this site. The landscape of online casino games real money options continues evolving, and informed selection requires both understanding the evaluation framework and recognising its limitations for individual cases. Players interested in specific formats should consult dedicated coverage of online casino slot games for reel mechanics and volatility analysis, table games online casino for strategic depth evaluation, and live casino games online for streaming quality and interaction assessment.

No single ranking captures all relevant dimensions, and the ten operators evaluated here present genuine alternatives rather than a simple quality gradient. The numerical scores provide starting points for investigation; final selection requires matching operator profiles to individual requirements that only the player can fully specify. The same operators are compared on payout speed in our instant win games rundown.