Online slots: what can really be checked beforehand

The phrase slot online gets 18,100 searches a month (Keyword Planner, Italy, 27.09.2026). In the library of facts that holds up this site there are a hundred operators, read on 26 August 2026. Thirty-three of them publish the list of studios that sign their online slots; the other sixty-seven do not publish it, or we were unable to read it. This is where an honest comparison between online slots starts: not from the number of games written in the shop window, which nobody can verify from the outside, but from the fact that a list of providers exists, is legible and can be put next to the one from the site next door. This page tells what we counted, what that count proves and which boxes, in our files, are left empty.

What is in our files before talking about online slots

The library contains one hundred operator records. For thirty-eight of them the pages were read live, for forty-one from a saved copy of the same pages, and for twenty-one nothing could be read: in this last group every field stays at zero and the record tells nothing. Ninety-nine records carry the reading date 26 August 2026, one 2 September 2026.

The fields a record can contain are few and all verifiable: the licence number and the register where it appears, the holding company, the list of countries the operator declares it does not serve, the summary of the clause on document verification, any declared withdrawal cap, the list of accepted currencies and the list of game studios. Nothing else.

It is worth saying straight away, because it changes the tone of everything else: in our files there is no field for the RTP of a slot, there is no field for payment speed and there is no field for the size of bonuses. We have not read them, so we do not write them. An empty box is a fact about our work, not an accusation against the operator.

Thirty-three lists out of a hundred: the perimeter of what can be checked

Thirty-three operators out of a hundred publish a legible list of providers. The lists run from twelve names to a hundred and fifty, with a median of forty-seven. Anyone promising «thousands of online slots» and not publishing a list of studios is asking to be taken at their word; anyone publishing forty names is handing over something that can be compared.

The row to look at is the second. The largest catalogue after Instant Casino belongs to a site whose licence number shows as revoked in the register at the moment of reading. The number of online slots and the status of a licence number are two independent measures, and the first says nothing about the second. Anyone choosing by looking only at the shop window is choosing with half the data.

Five hundred and forty-eight names and a very long tail

If you put the thirty-three lists together you get five hundred and forty-eight distinct studios. Of these, two hundred and sixty-four appear on a single list: almost half the names exist, in our files, at only one operator. Fifty-eight studios appear on ten lists or more. Twenty-four appear on at least seventeen lists, that is, on more than half of the operators that publish a list.

This explains a feeling anyone who has opened three or four lobbies will have had: online slots resemble each other because the core of providers is shared. The same titles on different sites are neither a coincidence nor a copy: they are the same supplier sold to several operators. The long tail of two hundred and sixty-four unique names is instead where the lobbies really differ, and it is also the part no shop window highlights.

There is a practical way to use these two numbers. If an operator declares forty studios and thirty of those names are in the group of the fifty-eight most widespread, that lobby largely overlaps with many others: the catalogue is not an argument for choosing. If instead ten names out of forty belong to the long tail, that lobby contains something not found elsewhere, and in that case the catalogue becomes a legitimate reason. The difference between the two cases cannot be seen from the declared total, it can be seen only by comparing the lists side by side.

What we do not have is any figure on how many titles each studio actually brings into a single lobby. An operator may declare Pragmatic Play and have loaded four of its games or two hundred: this box in our files is empty, and it stays empty even when the shop window shows a four-figure counter.

The studios that come back most often in online slots

Twenty-six lists out of thirty-three contain Endorphina and the same number contain Pragmatic Play. That means almost eight operators out of ten, among those that declare anything, offer the same two starting catalogues. If two sites both have those names, the comparison between their online slots is not decided there: it is decided on the clauses, on the currencies and on the status of the licence number. For the inventory by studio we have a page dedicated to game providers, and a second that looks at the same lists from the Italian side, dedicated to slot providers.

What an online slots record never told us

None of the hundred records contains an RTP value, a volatility class or a bet limit for an individual title. We have not read those numbers and we do not invent them. Anyone looking for those quantities will find two pages on the site explaining how they are defined and why a figure declared in the shop window is not the same as a verified figure: slot rtp e slot volatility.

The same goes for the counts. A lobby that shows «4,000 games» counts what it decides to count: variants of the same title, live tables, instant games. The number of studios, on the other hand, is a finite list the operator signs with its own name. Between an elastic figure and a closed list we prefer the closed list, even when it is shorter and less flattering.

Not even the descriptive labels the records contain are useful for judging a slot. Sixty-two operators out of a hundred carry at least one label; the most frequent are «live tables» on forty-seven records, «sports betting» on forty-three, «tiered programme» on thirty-seven, «provably fair» on twenty-one and «own games» on twenty. They are descriptions of what the site contains, not measures of how it behaves. An «own games» label says that some titles do not come from an external studio, and therefore that for those titles no list of providers will ever help make a comparison.

The cashier is the other half of any slot

Forty-nine operators out of a hundred have a clause on document verification that we managed to read and summarise. Of these, only five state a figure: Bitcasino.io, Sportsbet.io and Livecasino.io speak of 2,500 euros or the equivalent in cryptocurrency, Rocketpot of 2,500 dollars, Empire.io of 2,000 USDT. For the other forty-four verification is described as possible «at any time», at the operator’s discretion: a wording that reads clearly but that contains no threshold.

Fourteen operators out of a hundred declare a withdrawal cap. The two extremes are 4,000 euros a day (Oshi Casino, clause 12, and Instant Casino, clause 8.1) and 1,000,000 USDT a week (Bitcasino.io, clause 6.10). In between sit, among others, Wild Fortune's 15,000 euros a month (clause 11.8) and PlayAmo's 7,500 euros a week (clause 12). The other eighty-six declare nothing of the kind: the box is empty.

These two measures are worth more than any count of titles, because they describe the moment money comes out. A very rich lobby of online slots and a cap of 4,000 euros a day coexist without contradiction: the first concerns how much there is to open, the second how much can be taken out in twenty-four hours. They are two different facts and they should be read separately.

On verification we add a figure worth keeping in mind when comparing two lobbies: among the forty-nine operators with a legible clause, forty-seven reserve the right to verify from the start of the relationship and only two state that they do not require it. It is not a popularity ranking, it is a description of what the documents say. Anyone expecting to open a game and never meet a request for documents is betting on two records out of a hundred.

Twenty-four brands, nine numbers: the same hall with different names

Among the hundred records there are fifty-three distinct licence numbers. Nine of those numbers appear on more than one brand, and they cover a total of twenty-four different brands. The largest group is ALSI-202508056-FI2, in the name of Novatrix SRL: five brands share it, namely Oshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum, Winz.io and Bitkingz. Then come OGL/2024/1307/0748 of Scores55 Tech B.V. with three brands, OGL/2024/1798/1048 of Santeda International B.V. with three and OGL/2023/103/0067 of Rabidi N.V., also with three brands and with a revoked status in the register.

For anyone looking for online slots this has a concrete consequence: two lobbies that look like different houses may sit on the same licence number and under the same holding company. Opening a second account at a twin brand does not increase the number of counterparties you are dealing with, it leaves it at exactly one. The thing can be seen only by reading the number, not by looking at the logo: the subject is told at length in the page on why casinos change domain.

Let us add the opposite case, which is less intuitive. Thirty-nine brands out of a hundred appear in the Anjouan register and for seven of these there is also an active entry in the Curaçao register, with two different holding companies and two different numbers for the same site. Thunderpick, for example, shows as Paloma Media B.V. on one side and Napier Ltd on the other; TrustDice shows as Satoshi Gaming Group N.V. and Satoshi Labs Ltd; Wild.io shows as Nonce Gaming B.V. and Stack Gaming Ltd. It is not an error of the registers that we can resolve: it is a double holding that we have read and that we put in writing as it is.

How we line up online slots, and why the catalogue is not enough

The score that appears beside an operator comes from seven components out of a maximum of ten points: licence number confirmed in a register (2.5), published list of refused countries (1.5), clarity of the verification clause (2), currencies accepted (1.5), breadth of coverage (1.5), no verification imposed at registration (1) and list of providers (1). Forty-seven operators out of a hundred collect enough components to receive a number; fifty-three are left without a score, because a score built on two filled cells and five empty ones would be worse than silence.

There is a detail that concerns precisely anyone looking for online slots and that we prefer to say out loud: the «list of providers» component is declared but at present is not counted in the score. The catalogue, today, does not move an operator’s score. It moves your understanding of what you are about to open, and that is reason enough to count it, but we have not turned it into points until we have read more than thirty-three lists out of a hundred.

The complete comparison, with the scores, the components filled in and those missing, is in the table of the migliori crypto casinò on the home page. Anyone arriving instead from the broader question, with no precise idea of what they want to open, will find the general picture in the page on online casinos, where the same formula is explained row by row.