Skip to content
Points of Match

Written and checked by Teodora VulićComparisons editor

Measured, then ordered

Ten operators, seven checks, and the count printed beside every one

Fifty operators went through the same seven checks. Twenty-nine of them publish a territory list that could be counted against the 74 countries BitStarz names in its own terms, and the ten highest totals are printed below. The ranking column and the overlap column disagree, which is the most useful thing about them.

Two numbers sit on every row

Fifty operators were put through the same seven checks. Twenty-nine of them publish a territory list that could be read and counted; twenty-one carry the words nothing to compare, and that phrase costs zero points rather than dropping a row to the foot of the table. Ten rows are printed here, ordered by their total out of 100.

Each row carries a total and an overlap, and the two diverge often enough that reading only one would mislead. The total sums seven checks with fixed weights. The overlap is a single count: how many of the 74 countries BitStarz excludes in its own terms also appear in the other operator’s list, all read on 26 August 2026.

Sorting by one column and explaining by the other is the method here, and it is set out in full under the measure.

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.
CasinoOperatorLicenceCountries barredWithdrawal limitVisit
Vavepaid placementTechOptions Group B.V.Curaçao no numberlist not readfrom 50,000 USDT in instalments cl. 8.8Visit
BitStarzGareton B.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority74not published
Oshi CasinoNovatrix SRLAnjouan Gaming Board224not published
PlayAmoNovatrix SRLAnjouan Gaming Board217not published
BitdreamsHollycorn N.V.Antillephone N.V.216not published
7Bit Casinonot publishedCuraçao Gaming Authority216not published
BitkingzNovatrix SRLAnjouan Gaming Board218not published
MiraxScores55 Tech B.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority220not published
SlotumNovatrix SRLAnjouan Gaming Board216not published
Metaspins3-102-959384 SRLCuraçao Gaming Authority58not published
CryptoLeoUno Digital Media B.V.Curaçao Gaming Authority74not published
Bets.ioTechno Wave Systems S.R.L.Curaçao Gaming Authority42not published

The ranking and the overlap column pull apart

Mirax heads the table with 73 points and an overlap of 70. Oshi Casino and PlayAmo share the highest overlap found anywhere in the pool, 72 of 74, and they sit fifth and sixth with 59 points each. Bets.io repeats 38 of the 74 names and still reaches 60.

That is arithmetic rather than opinion. Overlap carries 30 of the 100 points, so a gap of two or three country names moves a row by roughly a single point. The licensing authority carries 15, and the BitStarz permit is issued by the Curaçao Gaming Authority; an operator under the Anjouan Gaming Board surrenders the whole 15 at once. Bitdreams, at 71 of 74, sits on an Antillephone N.V. licence and pays the same price.

One column answers how closely the territory policy tracks. The other answers how closely the operator tracks across seven readable fields. Printing both is cheaper than arguing about which deserves to be the ranking.

One of the seven checks paid nothing to anybody

The formula reserves 15 points for a shared licence holder — a sister brand in the strict sense, where one company is named on both permits. The BitStarz permit names Gareton B.V. Across all fifty rows, the company on the licence was Gareton B.V. zero times.

That check awarded its 15 points to nobody, so the reachable ceiling of the scale is 85. Mirax’s 73 is 73 out of 85. Novatrix SRL is named on the Anjouan permit behind five brands in the pool, Oshi Casino and PlayAmo among them, so families of that kind certainly exist — a family BitStarz stands outside of simply earns nothing under a check about BitStarz.

The ten, and the field where each one departs

Mirax — 73 points, 70 of 74. Curaçao Gaming Authority permit OGL/2024/1307/0748, held by Scores55 Tech B.V. Its own list runs to 220 names, and clause 8 publishes a ceiling of €10,000 a week.

Metaspins — 68 points, 57 of 74. The shortest list measured here, 58 names, of which 57 sit inside the BitStarz 74. The one remaining name is Malta. A sportsbook runs alongside the casino, which costs the 10 points reserved for casino-only operators.

Bets.io — 60 points, 38 of 74. Permit OGL/2024/1178/0479 appears in the Curaçao register with the status Revoked, read on 26 August 2026 — a statement about a register entry. Clause 10 sets 10,000 USD per transaction, and clause 5 allows 30 calendar days to supply documents.

Bitdreams — 59 points, 71 of 74. Antillephone N.V. licence 8048/JAZ2019–015, held by Hollycorn N.V. The change of authority weighs more than the three country names separating the two lists. Section 11 publishes €20,000 a month.

Oshi Casino — 59 points, 72 of 74. Joint highest overlap in the pool. Anjouan permit ALSI-202508056-FI2, holder Novatrix SRL, clause 12 setting €4,000 a day and allowing confiscation where documents stay unsupplied for 40 days. The reading in full: what 72 of 74 buys and what it leaves open.

PlayAmo — 59 points, 72 of 74. The same permit number as Oshi Casino, the same holder, and a list of 217 names against 224. Clause 12 publishes €7,500 a week and adds a phone or video call to the verification wording. More at one permit, two territory documents.

Slotum — 58 points, 69 of 74. A third brand on that Anjouan permit. Clause 13 sets €15,000 a week and locks an account where a player stays unreachable for two weeks after requesting a withdrawal.

Wild.io — 58 points, 31 of 74. The lowest overlap in the ten, carried up the table by a matching Curaçao authority, in-house games and twelve coins at the cashier. A row that shows how little the overlap alone settles.

7Bit Casino — 54 points, 71 of 74. The third-highest overlap and the thinnest record: the company on the licence and the verification wording were both unread on 26 August 2026, so 25 points went unpaid for want of a document. Set out under a high overlap with a thin record.

CryptoLeo — 54 points, 48 of 74. Its own list is also exactly 74 names long, and 26 of those names are absent from the BitStarz list. Equal length, different contents — which is why list sizes are a poor proxy for anything. Clause 7.9 sets 50,000 USDT a month.

What a high total leaves open

Seven checks read seven published fields. Between them they describe a permit, a country list, a product shape and a verification posture. Game libraries, cashier speed, support behaviour and the experience of an actual payout sit outside the measure entirely, because none of those can be read off a document with a date on it.

A total of 73 therefore means something narrow and checkable: this operator matches BitStarz on most of what both of them publish about themselves. It carries no promise about the parts neither of them publishes.

Where the ten stop and the other forty begin

Seventy-eight candidates were considered and fifty went through the checks. Of those fifty, twenty-one publish a territory list that stayed unread on 26 August 2026, and each of them carries the label nothing to compare against the overlap column.

Those rows are absent from this ten because a missing document produces a missing count, and a missing count is a gap in the record rather than a finding about the operator. Anyone with a reason to look at one of them will find the list of unread fields printed on the row itself. The two figures underlying every count above have their own pages: the 74 names and where they were read and the ceilings, read at seven operators of twelve. The shortlists by reason sit on the front page.

Visit

Questions people actually type

What is the best alternative to BitStarz?
That depends on which column you read. Mirax carries the highest total on the seven checks, 73 points, with an overlap of 70 of 74. Oshi Casino and PlayAmo carry the highest overlap read anywhere in the pool, 72 of 74, and sit at 59 points each because their permits come from a different authority. Both numbers are printed on every row so the choice of yardstick stays with the reader.
How is the ranking calculated?
Seven checks with fixed weights: restricted-country overlap 30 points, same licensing authority 15, same licence holder 15, in-house original games 10, a VIP programme 10, casino without a sportsbook 10, and the same verification posture 10. Every field is read from a published document with a date attached. A field that was not read scores zero and is labelled as unread rather than counted as a difference.
Why does an operator with a higher overlap rank lower?
Because overlap is 30 of the 100 points and the licensing authority is another 15. BitStarz holds a Curaçao Gaming Authority permit, so an operator under the Anjouan Gaming Board or under Antillephone N.V. gives up 15 points at once. Bitdreams repeats 71 of the 74 names and still lands below Mirax at 70, for exactly that reason.
Do any of these have the same owner as BitStarz?
In the fifty rows read on 26 August 2026, none names Gareton B.V. as the company on its licence, which is the company printed on the BitStarz permit. The 15 points reserved for a shared licence holder were therefore awarded to nobody, and the practical ceiling of the scale is 85 rather than 100.