A country list tied for third here finishes eleventh of fifty

Bitkingz repeats 71 of the 74 countries named in the BitStarz restricted-territory list. Only two operators measured here repeat more. On the full seven-check scale it scores 49 of 100 and finishes eleventh, outside the ten this site shortlists. Both numbers are correct, and the distance between them is the whole point of the page.

Seventy-one of 74, and 49 of 100

Bitkingz produces the widest gap between its two numbers of any operator measured on this site. Its territory list repeats 71 of the 74 countries BitStarz excludes — a figure only Oshi Casino and PlayAmo exceed, both on 72, and one that Bitdreams and 7Bit Casino match exactly — and its total score is 49 of 100, which places it eleventh of the fifty operators put through the measure and leaves it off the shortlist by two points.

Neither figure is wrong. They measure different things, and a reader who takes the total as a summary of the overlap will misread both.

A drawing of a fennec fox in a pale blue coat holding a large printed sheet open in both paws and reading it — A drawing, made for this page — an illustration rather than anyone’s screen. One sheet, because the 74 names on it were read off one page on one day rather than assembled from several sources. The groups above are our sorting of that single list, not headings BitStarz prints: 16 of the 27 European Union member states are named and 11 are absent, and nine French overseas departments and collectivities appear in full. A sweep that complete through one country’s overseas codes is the signature of a compliance data set rather than of a hand-written policy.

Three names, and a much longer list

The three countries BitStarz names and Bitkingz does not are Brazil, Poland and Russia.

That is worth stating precisely, because the arithmetic runs in one direction. The measure asks how much of the BitStarz list a second operator repeats, and nothing else. It does not ask whether the second list is longer, and here it is very much longer: BitStarz names 74 territories, Bitkingz names 218. Almost everything in the Bitkingz document has no counterpart in the BitStarz one and is invisible to the count.

So 71 of 74 describes a containment, not an equivalence. The two operators agree about 71 places. About the other 147 entries in the Bitkingz list, BitStarz has published nothing that this comparison can see.

What each operator publishes about itself: the company named on the licence, the permit number and where it was read, and how many countries the operator excludes in its own terms. Similarity here is a count with a denominator printed beside it — BitStarz names 74 countries, and an operator's overlap is stated as a share of those 74. An operator whose own list was not read carries nothing to compare rather than a low score, because an unread list is not evidence of difference. An empty cell means the document was not read — it is not a zero, and it is not a permission.
Casino	Operator	Licence	Countries barred	Withdrawal limit	Visit
Vavepaid placement	TechOptions Group B.V.	Curaçao no number	list not read	from 50,000 USDT in instalments cl. 8.8	Visit
BitStarz	Gareton B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	74	not published
Oshi Casino	Novatrix SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	224	not published
PlayAmo	Novatrix SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	217	not published
Bitdreams	Hollycorn N.V.	Antillephone N.V.	216	not published
7Bit Casino	not published	Curaçao Gaming Authority	216	not published
Bitkingz	Novatrix SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	218	not published
Mirax	Scores55 Tech B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	220	not published
Slotum	Novatrix SRL	Anjouan Gaming Board	216	not published
Metaspins	3-102-959384 SRL	Curaçao Gaming Authority	58	not published
CryptoLeo	Uno Digital Media B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	74	not published
Bets.io	Techno Wave Systems S.R.L.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	42	not published

Poland is the interesting absence

Of the three names, Russia and Brazil are the ordinary cases. Neither appears in the lists of the two sibling brands measured alongside Bitkingz either, and Brazil in particular is absent from every one of the three documents compared in this group. A name that nobody repeats says more about drafting conventions than about any single operator.

Poland is different. It is one of the twenty-seven European Union member states, BitStarz names it, and among the operators sharing the Anjouan permit with Bitkingz it is the only one of the three whose document leaves it out. Slotum names Poland. Mirax names Poland. Bitkingz, drafted under the same licence as Slotum and carrying a list two entries longer, does not.

No explanation is available in either document and none is invented here. What is available is the presence, the absence, and the date both were read.

One permit number behind four brands

The Bitkingz licence recorded on 26 August 2026 is Anjouan Gaming Board number ALSI-202508056-FI2, held by Novatrix SRL. The permits behind Slotum, PlayAmo and Oshi Casino carry that same number and that same holder.

Four brands, one identifier, one company. Now compare the four territory documents: Bitkingz names 218 territories, PlayAmo 217, Slotum 216, Oshi 224. Four lists of four different lengths, missing four different sets of names, from one licensed company.

This is the most useful thing the measure found. A shared permit fixes the regulator, the register entry and the route a complaint would travel. It does not fix the country list, which stays a brand-level document, drafted and revised per site. Anyone treating sister site as shorthand for same rules is making a prediction that these four documents contradict.

The blank in the withdrawal column

The withdrawal-ceiling cell for Bitkingz is empty. That means the terms were not read on that point on 26 August 2026 — it does not mean the operator publishes no ceiling, and it certainly does not mean the ceiling is unlimited.

The distinction matters more here than usual, because a sibling brand on the identical permit does publish one. Slotum sets 15,000 euro a week under clause 13. PlayAmo sets 7,500 euro a week under clause 12. Oshi sets 4,000 euro a day, also under clause 12. Three brands on one licence, three ceilings, two different windows.

Given that spread, guessing what the fourth document says would be indefensible. The cell stays blank.

Where the fifty-one points went

Seven checks make up the total, and Bitkingz collected two of them outright.

It took 29 of the 30 points available for territory overlap, losing one to the three missing names. It took 10 for being a casino without a sportsbook, matching BitStarz. It took 10 for verification posture: both operators describe identity checks without attaching any monetary threshold, so the two documents are equally undefined and the check treats that as a match.

The other four awarded nothing. Fifteen points for a shared licensing authority went unawarded, because BitStarz answers to the Curaçao Gaming Authority and Bitkingz to the Anjouan Gaming Board. Fifteen for a shared licence holder went the same way: Gareton B.V. on one permit, Novatrix SRL on the other. Ten for running original in-house games was not awarded, and ten for a VIP programme was not awarded.

That is the arithmetic behind the eleventh place. It is driven almost entirely by regulatory paperwork and product features, and almost not at all by the territory clause the headline number describes.

What the comparison does not reach

This page compares two published documents on a fixed set of checks, and that is its whole extent. The library, the cashier, the pace of a payout, the quality of support — none of it is measured here, none of it is asserted, and no account was opened with either operator.

Three further readings follow. Slotum on the same permit shows what the shared licence does and does not settle. Mirax at the top of the table shows the same gap running the other way. The 74 names themselves are set out in the reference list. How each check is weighted is on the scoring rules, and every row in order is on Points of Match.

Questions people actually type

Is Bitkingz similar to BitStarz?

On territory policy, closely. Of the 74 countries BitStarz names in its own terms, 71 also appear in the Bitkingz terms, both read on 26 August 2026. On the wider measure Bitkingz reaches 49 of 100, because the licensing authority, the company on the permit, the original-games check and the VIP check each awarded nothing. High overlap and a low total are not a contradiction here; they answer different questions.

Which countries does BitStarz exclude that Bitkingz does not?

Three: Brazil, Poland and Russia. All three appear in the BitStarz list of 74 and none appears in the Bitkingz list, as both documents stood on 26 August 2026. The comparison runs one way only — it counts how much of the BitStarz list Bitkingz repeats, not the reverse, and the Bitkingz document is much longer at 218 territories.

Who operates Bitkingz?

The permit records Novatrix SRL, under Anjouan Gaming Board licence number ALSI-202508056-FI2, read from the public register on 26 August 2026. That same number and holder stand behind three other brands compared on this site. BitStarz answers to a different regulator, the Curaçao Gaming Authority, under permit OGL/2024/165/0185, held by Gareton B.V.

What is the Bitkingz withdrawal limit?

No ceiling was recorded from the Bitkingz terms read on 26 August 2026, so the cell is blank. A blank here means the document was not read on that point. It is not a figure of zero, it is not a statement that no ceiling exists, and it is not filled in from anywhere else. Slotum, on the identical permit, publishes 15,000 euro a week under clause 13.