Sixty-two studios at BitStarz, and the sixteen lists that can be set beside them

The BitStarz studio list ran to 62 names when it was counted. Sixteen of the 50 operators here publish a catalogue that can be counted alongside it, from 150 names down to 13. The longest of the sixteen shares 25 of the BitStarz 62; the best coverage in the set comes from a list of 80.

Sixteen of the 50 operators on this site publish a studio catalogue that can be counted. Set the sixteen against the 62 names BitStarz prints and the column stops behaving like a ranking almost immediately.

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	Latcas B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	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	Metaspins N.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	58	not published
CryptoLeo	Uno Digital Media B.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority	74	not published
Bets.io	Bets Entertainment N.V.	Curaçao Gaming Authority revoked	42	not published

The sixteen, and how much of the 62 each one carries

Operator	Studios in its catalogue	Of the BitStarz 62
Instant Casino	150	25
Betriot	140	25
Bitcasino.io	120	20
Fairspin	114	18
Sportsbet.io	110	17
Wild.io	80	38
Playbet.io	79	33
BetFury	73	21
CoinCasino	63	17
Livecasino.io	50	4
TrustDice	43	15
Bitsler	41	12
Thunderpick	40	19
DuckDice	19	8
CryptoLeo	13	6
Wolf.bet	32	6

Sort that table by the left-hand column and it is one order. Sort it by the right-hand column and it is almost the reverse at the top.

A drawing of a fennec fox in a pale blue coat holding up a phone in one paw and pointing at its screen with the other — A drawing, made for this page — an illustration rather than anyone’s screen. What a phone shows during play is never the ceiling; the ceiling sits in a numbered clause, and the seven read here are quoted with the clause number beside each one. Four different windows are in play across them — a day, a week, a month, a single transaction — so the raw figures do not rank against each other, and flattening them into one column would invent a comparison the terms do not support.

Bigger is not the same as overlapping

Instant Casino publishes 150 studio names — more than twice the BitStarz list — and 25 of the 62 are inside it. Wild.io publishes 80 and 38 of the 62 are inside it.

So a reader moving to the longest catalogue in the set for the sake of the shelf would leave 37 of the studios they came from, and a reader moving to a catalogue half that size would leave 24.

Livecasino.io is the extreme case in the other direction: 50 names, four of them shared. Its catalogue is not smaller than the others so much as pointed somewhere else entirely, which is what a live-dealer specialism looks like when it is counted this way.

The lesson is short, and it applies to every studio column on every comparison site. A count measures the size of a shelf. It says nothing about whether that shelf holds the things a particular reader came for, and the two questions can point in opposite directions inside the same table.

A drawing of a fennec fox in a pale blue coat standing beside a tall grey filing cabinet, holding an open folder — A drawing, made for this page — an illustration rather than anyone’s screen. The ten below were not picked out of a cabinet by name; they are the top of an ordering that ran over 50 records, drawn in turn from a pool of 78 that opened far enough to be scored. Where a folder stayed shut the row carries nothing to compare rather than a low mark, which is why 21 of the 50 sit outside this ten on an unread clause rather than on a measured difference.

Three hundred and ninety names, five in common

Take all seventeen catalogues together — the sixteen above plus the BitStarz 62 — and 390 distinct studio names come out.

No studio appears in all seventeen. The widest reach belongs to Endorphina, GameArt and Platipus, each in fourteen. AvatarUX, Hacksaw Gaming and Spinomenal reach thirteen. BGaming, Evolution, PG Soft, Popiplay, Spribe and Thunderkick reach twelve.

One hundred and sixty-seven of the 390 appear in exactly one catalogue.

That distribution is the useful shape. A small core of suppliers turns up nearly everywhere, and beyond it every operator's shelf diverges fast. Two crypto casinos described identically in every review will still differ on hundreds of supplier names, and neither of them advertises which ones.

The five names that do not travel

Five of the BitStarz 62 appear in none of the sixteen catalogues counted here: Bulletproof Games, Delulu Gaming, NetGame Entertainment, Slightly Edgy and TrueLab Games.

Fifty-seven of the 62, then, are carried by at least one operator in this set. For anybody whose reason for staying is a particular studio, the answer is usually that it exists elsewhere, and for five suppliers it does not exist elsewhere in these sixteen.

That figure is bounded by the reading rather than by the market. Thirty-four of the 50 rows have no counted catalogue at all, so a studio absent from the sixteen may sit in any of the 34. Five is the number of BitStarz suppliers not found in what was counted, and that is all it is.

What a studio count cannot do

It cannot count titles. A supplier with three slots on the shelf and a supplier with three hundred each score one name, and the difference between them is invisible in every column of this kind.

It cannot resolve naming. Operators fold sub-labels into parents or split them out, and two catalogues describing the same commercial arrangement can differ by ten names without a single game moving.

It cannot describe the settings. Where a studio ships a slot in several return-to-player configurations, the operator chooses one, and the choice appears in a game information panel rather than in any document a reader can open beforehand. No figure of that kind appears anywhere on this site.

And it cannot promise tomorrow's shelf. Suppliers are added and dropped continually, without announcement, and every count here describes a page on the day it was read.

Visit

Where the shelf sits among the other checks

The catalogue is one of five things people say they go to this brand for, and it is the one with the most published evidence behind it. The others run from well documented to barely documented at all: what an operator pays out in is published by twenty of the fifty, set out at twenty coin lists, from forty currencies to one, while a payout processing window with a clause behind it was recorded exactly once across all fifty records.

The company behind the shelf is a separate question again, and in this set the answer clusters: six groups of brands share a company or a permit number between them, which is worked out at one permit, several brands.

Questions people actually type

How many game studios does BitStarz have?

Sixty-two, counted from the operator's own game-providers page. That is a count of supplier names the operator prints, not a count of titles, and operators group and rebrand studios differently, so the figure ranks disclosure rather than depth.

Which alternative carries the most of the same studios?

Wild.io. Its catalogue of 80 names shares 38 of the BitStarz 62, which is 61 per cent. Playbet.io comes second with 33 of the 62 from a list of 79. The two longest catalogues in the set, Instant Casino at 150 and Betriot at 140, each share 25 — so the biggest shelf is not the one that reproduces this one.

Are there studios only BitStarz carries?

Five of the 62 appear in none of the sixteen catalogues counted here: Bulletproof Games, Delulu Gaming, NetGame Entertainment, Slightly Edgy and TrueLab Games. That is five out of 62, so 57 of the names are available somewhere else in this set. The five are the only ones for which moving brands removes a supplier outright.

What does an empty studio cell mean?

That no dated capture of that operator's own catalogue exists in this record. Thirty-four of the 50 rows are in that state. Each of them runs a lobby and each would state a figure on request; what is missing is a count taken from a page the operator publishes, and the cell stays blank rather than borrowing one.