Thunderpick vs Roobet
Thunderpick's licence is the one a reader can look up, but its statement about verification is a homepage sentence rather than a contract clause, and Roobet's unwelcome rules are at least written down properly.
Written by Jordan Vela/Last checked:
Editor — reads operator documents and records what they say
Thunderpick against Roobet, side by side
| Thunderpick | Roobet | |
|---|---|---|
| Licence | Curaçao Gaming Authority | Government of Curaçao |
| Licence no. | OGL/2024/677/0722 | OGL/2024/687/0427 |
| Register status | Active | Not checked in the register |
| Providers | 40 | Not published |
| Coins | Not verified | 11 |
| Stated KYC threshold | Not published | Not published |
| Withdrawal cap | Not verified | Not published |
| Since | Not verified | Not published |
Source: roobet.com, 2026-08-28.
Thunderpick is one of the 41 Roobet alternatives compared here, each on its own published records.
Thunderpick's record is strong in one place and weak in another, and the two are worth separating. Its Curacao Gaming Authority licence, OGL/2024/677/0722, is recorded as active with a certificate link into the authority's own register. It names forty studios on its own site, including Evolution, Big Time Gaming, Hacksaw, Endorphina, Yggdrasil, NetEnt and PG Soft. Roobet's licence carries no register link, and Roobet names no studios at all.
The weak place is verification. What our record holds for Thunderpick is a statement that the operator verifies each account and each transfer, taken from the site itself rather than from a numbered term, and it does not say when identity documents are required. That is not a document a player can rely on. Roobet's clauses 4.9 and 10.5 are unwelcome — documents at any time, withdrawals refused until identity is fully verified — but they are contract language with numbers attached.
A homepage claim against two contract clauses
There is a real difference between an operator saying on its front page that it verifies accounts and an operator writing into its terms what it may demand and when. The first is a marketing statement; the second is enforceable in both directions and can be read before depositing. On this measure Roobet is ahead of Thunderpick, and it is the kind of point that gets skipped on comparison pages because it does not favour the site being recommended.
Neither operator publishes a figure. Roobet's clause 4.9 covers requests at any time with restrictions until identification completes, and clause 10.5 makes withdrawal conditional on full verification. Thunderpick's wording does not specify when documents are needed at all. A reader who wants to know what happens at the cash-out will find more in Roobet's terms, and will not like what they find.
Where Thunderpick is clearly ahead
Forty named studios is a substantial published roster, and it is the sort of information that is trivially checkable by opening the site. Roobet's game supply is not described anywhere it publishes. Our library holds sixty-four provider names for Roobet, but those come from our own compilation, and a page cannot fairly credit an operator for information the operator does not print.
| Roobet | Thunderpick | |
|---|---|---|
| Studios named | None published | 40 |
| Coins listed | 11 | Not read |
| Licence number | OGL/2024/687/0427 | OGL/2024/677/0722 |
| Licence status | Not stated | Active |
| Register link | None held | Certificate link into the Curacao register |
| Verification source | Terms, clauses 4.9 and 10.5 | Homepage wording, no clause |
Roobet read 2026-08-28. Thunderpick from our operator record, checked 2026-08-26.
Cashier and cost
We have not read a coin list for Thunderpick. Roobet's is published and specific: BTC, USDT, USDC, ETH, SOL, SUI, BNB, XRP, TRX, LTC and DOGE. For a site whose whole proposition is crypto, that is a meaningful gap in Thunderpick's favour to close.
On charges the same asymmetry appears. Roobet applies 1% to successful fiat deposits under clause 9.7 and 2% from the tenth fiat withdrawal in any rolling thirty-day period under clause 10.8, and requires a deposit to be wagered before withdrawal under clause 10.1. No fee schedule has been read for Thunderpick, and no withdrawal cap; Roobet publishes no cap either. As everywhere in this comparison, an unread figure is not a low one.
Pros
- Forty studios named on the operator's own site, where Roobet names none.
- Active Curacao certificate with a register link, against no register link at Roobet.
- The licence number OGL/2024/677/0722 appears on no other record in our library.
Cons
- The verification statement comes from the site rather than from a numbered term, and does not say when documents are required.
- No coin list read, so the cashier cannot be compared with Roobet's eleven.
- No fee schedule, withdrawal cap, operating company or founding year read.
Questions people ask
- When does Thunderpick ask for identity documents?
Its own wording says it verifies each account and transfer, but does not specify when documents are required. Roobet's clauses 4.9 and 10.5 are explicit that documents may be demanded at any time and withdrawals refused until identity is fully verified.
- Which one names its game studios?
Thunderpick, with forty. Roobet publishes no studio list; the sixty-four providers we hold for it come from our own library.
- Can Thunderpick's licence be checked?
Yes. OGL/2024/677/0722 is recorded as active with a certificate link into the Curacao Gaming Authority register. Roobet's number carries no register link in our record.
- Which coins does Thunderpick take?
We have not read a coin list for it. Roobet publishes eleven coins in its cashier.
- Is there a withdrawal cap at either?
Neither publishes one that we have read. Roobet's terms contain no maximum withdrawal, and no cap document has been read for Thunderpick.
Thunderpick · alternatives to Roobet