Which software the balance really runs on: the providers declared by 33 brands

A crypto casino almost never writes its own games. It buys most of them from external studios and develops a smaller part in-house, and it is a distinction that changes who answers for what when something does not add up.

Of the hundred brands in the library, 33 publish a list of providers legible enough to be recorded. The other 67 do not publish one at all, or they load it inside an interface that returns no text. An empty box means not read, never «no provider».

The same clustering can be seen on the domains, where a few companies present themselves under many names: why the same casino appears with several domains. Which brands accept the stablecoin, and on which networks, is in best USDT casinos. The full comparison is in best crypto casinos in Italy.

One premise that applies to all the numbers on this page: the provider lists are on the lobby and cashier pages, which are not numbered by clauses. Next to these figures there is therefore no contractual reference, and there will not be one.

How long these lists really are

The 33 brands declare 1997 entries in all. The distance between the shortest and the longest is the first thing that catches the eye.

Brand	Entries in the list
Instant Casino	150
Betriot	140
Bitcasino.io	120
Fairspin	114
Sportsbet.io	110
Thrill (median value of the group)	47
DuckDice	19
BetPlays	19
CryptoLeo	13
Lucky Block	12

Twelve entries against a hundred and fifty is a ratio of one to twelve and a half between two sites that present themselves in the same way. Part of the difference is real, part of it depends only on how deeply the operator decided to list: a site that writes «Pragmatic Play» once and a site that writes the live version of the same studio separately arrive at two different totals without offering a single extra game.

Why 548 names are not 548 studios

Counting the entries exactly as they are written, the distinct names in the 33 lists are 548. It is the number a comparison table would report, and it is wrong.

The same studio is written in different ways by different operators, and nobody normalises. Nolimit City appears in four spellings — «Nolimit City» in 14 lists, «NoLimit City» in 6, «NoLimit» in 3, «No Limit City» in 2 — which are the same studio in 25 lists. Evolution appears as «Evolution» in 22 and as «Evolution Gaming» in 5. Pragmatic Play turns up in five different forms, including one all run together. PG Soft is written with and without a space.

Unifying capitals, spaces and punctuation, the 548 names become 498; with a stricter rule, which treats «Slotmill» and «Slotmill Games» as a single studio, 457 remain. And the figure that changes most is the one that really mattered: the names that appear in only one list fall from 264 to 220, and to 196 with the stricter rule.

Counting spellings instead of studios inflates the variety by about a tenth, and by almost a fifth if the stricter rule is applied as well.

Which studios really appear almost everywhere

With the names unified, 28 studios appear in more than half of the 33 lists. They are the common base on which most balances run.

Studio	Lists that name it, in any spelling	Only with the most widespread spelling
Hacksaw Gaming	32	25
Pragmatic Play	28	26
Evolution	27	22
Endorphina	26	26
Nolimit City	25	14
PG Soft	25	24
BGaming	24	23
NetEnt	23	23
Spribe	19	19

The Nolimit City row explains on its own why rankings that count spellings get it wrong: 14 and 25 are the same studio, and the difference is all spelling.

Hacksaw Gaming is named by 32 lists out of 33. The only one that does not name it, and that does not name Pragmatic Play, BGaming or Nolimit City either, is CryptoLeo, with its 13 entries.

Third parties and Originals: two categories, two parties responsible

Two different things coexist in an operator’s list. The first are the external studios: independent companies that develop the games, certify them on their own account and license them to many operators at once. It is the reason why the same slot is found on dozens of sites with the same maths.

The second are the games developed by the operator itself, the ones the sites call Originals: crash, dice, mines, plinko. In their own list some operators write them alongside the external studios, as if they were one provider among others; they are not, because the provider in that case is the operator.

The distinction counts for two practical reasons. The first concerns provably fair: the mechanism that allows the outcome of a round to be recalculated generally covers only the Originals, while the games of external studios almost never are. The second concerns bonuses: in the rules read, the contribution to the wagering requirement changes along exactly this line. In the conditions of Bitcasino.io’s welcome promotion slots contribute 100%, live dealer 10% and the operator’s Originals games 0%.

A bonus played on the games the site produces in-house, in that case, does not advance by a single cent.

What a provider list proves, and what it does not

It proves one thing only: that on the date of reading the operator wrote those names on its own page. It is a statement by the operator on a page the operator controls, exactly like the licence number at the bottom of the home page.

It does not prove that the agreement with that studio is in force today. It does not prove that all that studio’s titles are in the catalogue, because agreements often cover part of the library. And it does not prove that those games open from Italy, because the geographic filter is applied by the studio or by the operator title by title, and it is not visible in the list.

A long list, then, is not in itself an advantage. It is the sign of a wide aggregated catalogue, and it should be read together with the rest: who holds the licence, which register confirms it and at what moment the request for documents arrives.

What was not read

The list of 67 brands out of 100 was not read: for those there is no count here, and their absence from this page is not a judgement.

The certification bodies of the individual studios were not read, nor the RTP values of the individual titles: those fields do not exist in the library and no return percentage is claimed anywhere on this site.

It has not been reconstructed which studios refuse which markets. It is a figure that exists, we do not have it, and inventing it would be worse than saying nothing.

The readings are from 26 August 2026, with the Vave entry re-read on 2 September 2026.

Anyone who wants to know which body the operator hosting these games answers to will find the route in the page on who to turn to when the operator is not ADM. The comparison with the Italian licensed perimeter is in the page on the ADM concession, and the count of the steps the money takes is in the page from the euro to the cryptocurrency.

Gambling is prohibited to anyone under eighteen and can cause pathological addiction. The Telefono Verde Nazionale of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 800 55 88 22, is free and anonymous.