Scores come from a formula
Seven weighted criteria, one calculation and no manual adjustment of the final number. The full model is published on the methodology page.
About iGamingHub
iGamingHub compares payment providers for online gambling operators. We score each one against a published formula, show the working and say plainly where our data runs out.
The problem we're trying to fix
Picking a payment provider is one of the most expensive decisions an operator makes, and one of the hardest to research. Online gambling was worth roughly $88.0 billion in 2025, yet most of what is written about its payment layer comes from vendors themselves.
Search for a gateway and you will land on a sales page, a partner directory or a “top 10” where the ranking follows the commission. Fees sit behind a sales call. Licensing claims rarely link to a register. Nobody tells you which provider will actually onboard a Curaçao-licensed casino and which one will stall for six weeks and then decline.
A CFO or head of payments ends up building the same spreadsheet from scratch every time. We built the site we wanted while doing that.
Mission
Give operators enough verified detail to shortlist payment providers before the first sales call. A good shortlist should take an afternoon.
Standards
What we hold ourselves to
The method is public
Weights, score bands and a worked example are published. If you disagree with a rating, you can see exactly which criterion to challenge.
We say what we don't know
We do not see private contract rates or run live transactions through every provider. Self-reported and missing figures are labelled plainly.
Data has a date on it
Every review shows when it was checked. A licence change, regulatory fine or change of ownership triggers an out-of-cycle review.
Unflattering facts stay in
Fines, revoked licences and documented onboarding complaints appear beside the strengths, with a source.
Team
The people behind the research
The editor-in-chief signs off every final score. Nobody in a commercial role can edit a rating.
Elena Markova
Editor-in-Chief
Sets the editorial standard, reviews the evidence and signs off every final score.
Daniel Brooks
Payments Analyst
Researches provider documentation, pricing structures, APIs, settlement and operator use cases.
Priya Nair
Compliance & Licensing Researcher
Checks regulator registers, licensing status, enforcement history and market-specific restrictions.
Independence
Funding
iGamingHub is funded by its owners. We do not sell rankings, review scores or catalogue listings, and we do not publish paid reviews. There are no affiliate links on the site, so we earn nothing when you click through to a provider. We do not run advertising either.
If an owner ever holds an interest in a provider we cover, that relationship will be disclosed on this page and on the provider's review. The provider will remain subject to the same formula and its complete scorecard will stay public.
The project in numbers
- Providers reviewed
- 85
- Scoring criteria
- 7
- Review cycle
- Quarterly
- Paid placements
- 0
- Launched
- August 2026
- Last data check
- 21 October 2026
Process
How we work
- 1CollectWe pull facts from provider documentation, API references, published pricing and terms.
- 2VerifyLicences are checked against the regulator's register. Public company details are checked against corporate filings.
- 3AskResearch gaps go to the provider as written questions. Answers are marked as self-reported.
- 4ScoreEach criterion receives a 0–10 score against a fixed rubric, then the published formula produces the total.
- 5Second readA different team member checks the scores against the evidence before publication.
- 6Publish with a dateThe review goes live with its check date and the name of the researcher responsible.
- 7RevisitEvery review is rechecked quarterly, or sooner when something material changes.
Providers do not see reviews before publication and cannot approve them. They can request a factual correction through the contact page with supporting evidence. We answer within three working days, and accepted corrections are dated on the review page.