Metaspins publishes the shortest list here and adds only Malta

Metaspins names 58 territories in its restricted list, and 57 of them are names BitStarz uses too. One addition, Malta, is the entire remainder. No other document in this pool sits so nearly inside the BitStarz set, and none makes the 17 absences so easy to read.

Fifty-seven of 58, and one name left over

The Metaspins restricted-territory clause names 58 places. Fifty-seven of them are names that appear in the BitStarz clause as well. The single leftover is Malta.

That is the tightest relationship between any two documents on this site. Twenty-nine operators here had their lists read on 26 August 2026, and the rest either name far more territories than BitStarz does or diverge in both directions at once. Metaspins is very nearly a subset, and a subset is a different animal from a coincidence.

The score, though, is 57 of 74, not 57 of 58. The measure divides by the BitStarz list every time, which is why the denominator is printed on every row.

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.

Why the fraction runs the other way

Reversing the fraction would flatter this operator enormously. Read as a share of what Metaspins itself publishes, the agreement is 57 of 58, and the two documents look almost identical. Read as a share of the BitStarz list, it is 57 of 74, and 17 names are unaccounted for.

Both statements are true and they answer different questions. A reader who wants to know whether a Metaspins policy resembles a BitStarz policy is asking the second question, because BitStarz is the reference. Letting each operator supply its own denominator would rank the shortest document highest, every time, and reward a business for publishing less.

So the denominator here is fixed at 74 for every row, and an operator that names fewer territories carries the shortfall rather than escaping it.

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

The one addition, and what it is

Malta is the only territory Metaspins names that BitStarz does not. No other operator in this comparison produces so small a set of additions; the next tightest adds 26, and one adds 145.

There is nothing to be inferred from a single entry beyond the entry itself, and this page will not try. The document names it. The BitStarz document does not. That is the whole observation, recorded on the date it was read.

Seventeen absences, twelve of them EU members

The gap between the two lists is not scattered. Of the 17 BitStarz names absent from the Metaspins clause, 12 are European Union member states: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. Liechtenstein sits alongside them in the European Economic Area. Belarus, Georgia and Serbia are European without being members. Brazil is the one entry outside the region entirely.

Put differently, 16 of the 17 differences between these two documents are European names, and the BitStarz list contains 16 European Union member states in total. Metaspins repeats four of them and leaves the other 12 out.

That pattern is the most substantial thing this comparison produces, and it comes with no explanation attached, because neither contract offers one. What can be said is that the two operators disagree about Europe far more than they disagree about anywhere else, and that the disagreement is one-directional: every name in dispute is a name BitStarz uses and Metaspins does not.

One authority, two companies

Both permits were issued by the Curaçao Gaming Authority and both were recorded as active on 26 August 2026. Metaspins holds OGL/2024/1063/0437 through 3–102–959384 SRL. BitStarz holds OGL/2024/165/0185 through Gareton B.V.

A shared authority pays 15 points, and it is a real similarity: the same regulator, the same register, the same route for a complaint that goes past the operator. A shared holder would pay 15 more and does not, because the companies are unrelated. This is the ordinary arrangement in the pool rather than the exception, and it is why very few rows here climb past 70.

On verification the two documents match. The Metaspins terms describe identity checks required once gambling reaches an unspecified level, with discretion to verify at any time and to withhold a withdrawal until the check completes, under clause 9.7. BitStarz describes proof of identity, proof of payment and proof of address at its own discretion. Neither publishes a figure. Matching vagueness earns 10 points, and it should be read as exactly that.

Sixty-eight points, and the one that is missing

Metaspins finishes second in this pool on 68 of 100, behind Mirax on 73. Twenty-three overlap points, 15 for the authority, 10 for a VIP programme, 10 for running its own original games, 10 for the verification match. The two gaps are the licence holder, worth 15, and the casino-only check, worth 10, which does not pay because Metaspins operates a sportsbook next to the casino.

Nothing here describes what either site is like to use. The comparison is between two contracts as they stood on one day, on seven questions chosen in advance, and the strongest of the seven is a count with 74 underneath it.

Two neighbouring readings sharpen this one. A list of 216 names is the opposite drafting strategy reaching a higher count. Two lists of exactly 74 shows a matching length hiding a large disagreement. The reference list is on the BitStarz names, the weights are on the measure, the full ranking is on the alternatives table, and the shortlists open on Points of Match.

Questions people actually type

Is Metaspins similar to BitStarz?

It is the second-highest scorer here on 68 points of 100, and the closest thing to a subset in the pool: 57 of its 58 restricted territories are names that also appear in the BitStarz list of 74. Both documents were read on 26 August 2026. The overlap check pays 23 of its 30 points, and a shared licensing authority pays a further 15.

Which countries are in the BitStarz list but not the Metaspins one?

Seventeen: Belgium, Bulgaria, Brazil, Belarus, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Slovakia. Twelve of those are European Union member states, which makes the gap between the two lists overwhelmingly a European gap.

Are Metaspins and BitStarz the same company?

No. Both permits were issued by the Curaçao Gaming Authority, which is worth 15 points on this measure, but the holders differ. The Metaspins permit, OGL/2024/1063/0437, is held by 3-102-959384 SRL; the BitStarz permit, OGL/2024/165/0185, is held by Gareton B.V. Both were recorded as active on 26 August 2026.

Why does Metaspins lose points for its sportsbook?

One of the seven checks asks whether an operator is casino only, because BitStarz is, and it carries 10 points. Metaspins runs a sportsbook alongside the casino, so those 10 points are not paid. The check records a structural difference between the two businesses rather than a judgement about either one.