Who publishes this, and on what basis
A comparison built only from operators' own documents, dated on the day each was read, with the gaps in the evidence printed rather than filled in.
Written by Jordan Vela/Last checked:
Editor — reads operator documents and records what they say
Written by
Jordan Vela
Editor — reads operator documents and records what they say
Jordan Vela compiles this comparison. The work is reading: an operator's terms of service, its cashier page, its footer's legal line and, where one resolves, its entry in a public licence register — then recording the figure, the clause it came from and the date it was read.
That last part is the whole job. A number on a comparison site is worth exactly as much as the document behind it, so nothing enters this record without a source that a reader can open, and a field nobody has read stays blank rather than becoming a zero.
Jordan has never held an account at any operator on this site and has not deposited, withdrawn or contacted a support desk at one. They cannot tell you how fast a payout arrives. What they can tell you is what each operator has committed to in writing, and on what date it said so.
This site exists to answer one question: if the operator you are on will not serve you, what else is there, and what can actually be established about it before you move?
It answers that from documents rather than from experience. Every figure on the site comes from an operator's own terms, cashier or licence record, or from a public licence register, and every page carries the date its facts were last checked. The main result is the list of Roobet alternatives, and the rules behind it are written out as our method, check by check.
Where the comparison starts
The starting point is a contract term rather than a market. Roobet's own terms name the territories it does not serve, and the licence page sets that clause out in full as a term of the operator's contract. For a reader in one of them, the useful thing is a Roobet alternative rather than a review of Roobet, and every page here is built around that.
That is the whole premise. The site is not a general casino directory and does not try to be one: it holds forty-one alternatives, compared against one subject, on the fields that can be read from published documents.
How the comparison is built
Roobet's record was read on 2026-08-28 from three places: the legal line in the site footer, which is carried on every page, the terms of service, and the cashier's published coin list. The forty-one alternatives were read between 2026-08-26 and 2026-08-28 from their own terms pages and from public licence registers.
Nothing is copied from another comparison site. The argument this site makes is that an operator's own paperwork is checkable, and a compiled table borrowed from somebody else would defeat that argument entirely. Where a figure appears here it is because a document said so, and the clause number and the date are printed so you can go and see for yourself.
The ordering of operators is computed rather than chosen. Ten checks against the operator record, fixed weights totalling ten, and a fixed maximum, with no manual override and no field for a commercial relationship to be read from. The methodology page sets all of it out, check by check.
What this site will not say
Nothing here was tested with money. No deposit was made, no withdrawal was timed, no support desk was contacted. That rules out a whole category of claims that comparison sites in this industry make routinely, and it is a deliberate trade: the site would rather be narrower and checkable than broader and unverifiable.
It also refuses to convert an unread field into a finding. Where a document has not been read, the page says so. An operator with no restricted list in our record has not been shown to accept everybody, and an operator with no coin list has not been shown to take nothing. Several pages here read as though half the evidence is missing, and that is because half the evidence is missing.
And it does not tell anyone what the law is where they live. Gambling law differs by country, changes, and is enforced differently in each. That is a question for a qualified adviser, not for a comparison site, and the legal notice says so at greater length.
The register problem, stated openly
The single largest limitation on this comparison is worth putting on the about page rather than burying it. On 2026-08-28 the Curacao Gaming Authority's certificate register returned no result for every domain queried against it, including brands whose Curacao licences are not in doubt.
That means Roobet's licence number, OGL/2024/687/0427, is unresolved. Unchecked, not invalid. A register that answers nothing to everything is evidence of nothing in either direction, and a site that reported its own failed lookup as a failed licence check would be reporting its tooling rather than the operator.
Seventeen brands in the comparison carry a certificate identifier rather than a domain search, and those still resolve. The distinction is printed on the licence page brand by brand.
How the site is funded
There is one commercial placement. Outbound links to it leave through a redirect on this domain, which is excluded from search indexing because it is a hop rather than a page. Where the placement appears, it is labelled.
The money decides which offer sits in that placement. It does not touch a licence number, a clause reference, a coin list, a studio count or a register result, and it is not an input to the ranking. That separation is enforced in code rather than promised in prose.
Corrections
Operators change their terms, cashiers and catalogues without notice, and a figure that was right on the date beside it can be wrong the following week. That is why every page prints a date rather than presenting itself as permanently current.
If a figure here is wrong, the useful correction names the page, the figure, the document it should have come from and the date you read it. Corrections of that kind are acted on by changing the underlying record, which updates every page that draws on it at once.
Questions people ask
- Who writes this site?
Jordan Vela, whose block appears above. The figures come from operator documents and public registers, the ordering is computed by a scoring routine, and the writing explains what those two produced. No page here reports personal experience of playing at any operator, because nothing was tested with money.
- How many operators are compared?
Forty-one alternatives against one subject, Roobet. Nothing is held back: every brand in the set has a comparison of its own generated from the same record.
- How often is it updated?
Each page prints the date its facts were last checked. Roobet's record was read on 2026-08-28 and the alternatives between 2026-08-26 and 2026-08-28. Where an operator changes a document, the fix is made in the underlying record so every page that uses it changes together.
- Why are so many fields blank?
Because they have not been read, and this site prints that rather than filling it in. Nineteen of the forty-one publish no cashier list we have read, nineteen no studio list, five no verification wording and two no licence record at all.