The highest total on this site sits on the fourth-closest country list

Mirax finishes first of the fifty operators measured here, on 73 points of 100. Three of the operators below it repeat more of the BitStarz territory list than Mirax does: it matches 70 of 74, against 72, 72 and 71. The lead comes from the six checks that have nothing to do with the country clause, and it is worth seeing exactly where.

First place, and three closer lists beneath it

Mirax reaches 73 points of 100, the highest total this site has recorded across fifty operators. The second-placed figure is 68, so the lead is not narrow.

Its territory overlap is 70 of 74. Oshi Casino and PlayAmo both reach 72, and Bitkingz reaches 71. All three finish below Mirax on points, two of them by fourteen and one by twenty-four.

A ranking that puts the fourth-closest list first is either broken or measuring something broader than a list. This one is measuring something broader, and the rest of this page sets out what.

A drawing of a fennec fox in a white lab coat and round glasses, holding a magnifying glass up in each paw — A drawing, made for this page — an illustration rather than anyone’s screen. Two glasses because every check on this page is a comparison of two published documents, never a judgement of one. Seven of them sum to 100 points, and the 15 set aside for a shared licence holder went unclaimed by all 50 rows, because Gareton B.V. appears on the BitStarz permit and on nobody else’s. That is why the top score on this page is 73 of a reachable 85 rather than 73 out of 100.

Four names absent from a list of 220

The countries BitStarz excludes and Mirax does not are Brazil, Guadeloupe, Russia and Sudan.

Two of those behave predictably. Brazil is absent from every comparison document in this group, and Russia from most of them, which suggests a drafting convention rather than a position taken by any one operator. Guadeloupe is the name Oshi Casino also leaves out, so a second operator agrees with Mirax about it. Sudan is the outlier: it appears in the BitStarz list and in most of the others, and Mirax is the document that omits it.

The Mirax list runs to 220 territories against the BitStarz 74, so the overwhelming majority of what Mirax publishes has no counterpart in the reference document and never enters the count. Seventy of 74 is a statement about containment in one direction. It is not a statement that the two documents resemble each other.

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 regulator match is worth fifteen points

Here is where the lead is built. BitStarz holds Curaçao Gaming Authority permit OGL/2024/165/0185. Mirax holds Curaçao Gaming Authority permit OGL/2024/1307/0748. Same authority, so the check pays 15.

That single award is most of the gap between Mirax and the two operators with closer lists. Oshi Casino and PlayAmo are both licensed by the Anjouan Gaming Board, and both forfeit those 15 points despite repeating two more of the 74 names. Swap the regulators and the order of the table changes.

What the 15 points actually represent is narrow and worth stating plainly: the same body issued the permit, the same register holds the entry, and a complaint about either operator would travel to the same place. That is a real similarity between two businesses. It is not a claim about how either behaves, and the measure does not make one.

Two Curaçao permits, two companies

The remaining 15 points, for a shared licence holder, were not awarded. Scores55 Tech B.V. is named on the Mirax permit; Gareton B.V. is named on the BitStarz permit. Two unrelated companies, both certified by the same authority.

The distinction between a shared authority and a shared holder does real work across this table. Four other brands compared here sit on one Anjouan permit number under one company, which makes them sister sites in the strict sense — and their territory lists still differ from each other in length and in contents. Mirax has the opposite profile: it shares a regulator with BitStarz and shares no ownership with it at all.

A published ceiling against a blank cell

Clause 8 of the Mirax terms sets a withdrawal ceiling of 10,000 euro a week. The BitStarz row carries nothing in that column, because the document was not read on the point.

The temptation is to read the blank as generosity, as though an unpublished ceiling meant an absent one. Nothing supports that. A blank cell on this site records what was not read, never what was found, and it is never filled from a secondary source.

For scale, the ceilings that were read elsewhere in this pool run from 4,000 euro a day through 7,500 and 10,000 to 15,000 euro a week. Those figures cover different windows and cannot be restated on a common footing without inventing a rate the contracts never use.

Verification, described by both and defined by neither

The seventh check compares verification posture rather than strictness, and it allows three states: a threshold published as a figure, verification described with no figure attached, or the subject left unaddressed.

Mirax and BitStarz both sit in the middle state, so Mirax takes the 10 points. The Mirax terms treat verification as obligatory, allow proof of identity, address and payment to be requested, and permit further documentation at the operator's sole discretion. The BitStarz wording is comparably open-ended.

Matching here means the two documents are equally vague, and that is worth saying rather than glossing. A shared habit of leaving verification undefined is a genuine similarity between two contracts and a poor guide to what either operator will ask a particular player for.

Reading the 73 honestly

The total decomposes cleanly: 28 points of the 30 for overlap, 15 for the authority, 10 for a VIP programme, 10 for being casino-only with no sportsbook, and 10 for the verification posture. Nothing for a shared holder, and nothing for original in-house games, which BitStarz runs and Mirax was not recorded as running.

So the honest summary is that Mirax leads on breadth rather than on proximity. If the question is which operator repeats the most of the BitStarz country list, the answer is Oshi Casino or PlayAmo. If the question is which one resembles BitStarz across every check this site applies, the answer is Mirax.

Two comparisons make the contrast concrete. Bitkingz on a closer list and a lower score is the sharpest version of the same gap, and Slotum under a shared permit shows what ownership settles and what it leaves open. The weights are set out on the scoring rules, and the full table opens on Points of Match.

Questions people actually type

Is Mirax the closest alternative to BitStarz?

It scores highest on the full measure, 73 of 100, and no operator here scores more. On the territory clause alone it is fourth: it repeats 70 of the 74 countries BitStarz names, where Oshi Casino and PlayAmo repeat 72 and Bitkingz repeats 71. Which of those two answers is the useful one depends entirely on what a reader means by close.

Are Mirax and BitStarz run by the same company?

No. Both hold permits from the same regulator, the Curaçao Gaming Authority, which is why Mirax takes the 15 points for a matching authority. The companies differ: Scores55 Tech B.V. holds licence OGL/2024/1307/0748 for Mirax, and Gareton B.V. holds OGL/2024/165/0185 for BitStarz. Both entries were read from per-certificate links on the regulator's register on 26 August 2026, and the further 15 points for a shared holder were not awarded.

Which countries does BitStarz exclude that Mirax does not?

Four: Brazil, Guadeloupe, Russia and Sudan. Each is named in the BitStarz terms and absent from the Mirax terms, as both stood on 26 August 2026. The Mirax list is far longer overall at 220 territories, so this counts only the direction that the measure asks about — how much of the BitStarz list is repeated.

Does Mirax publish a withdrawal limit?

Clause 8 of the Mirax terms sets 10,000 euro a week, read on 26 August 2026. The corresponding BitStarz cell is blank, meaning that document was not read on the point rather than that no ceiling exists. The two cannot be compared, and no comparison between them is offered here.