Casino operators: the companies behind the brands

Casino operators and casino brands are not the same list, and the gap between them is bigger than most comparison pages admit. Our register data covers 100 domains, and it repeatedly returns the same company for sites that present themselves as unrelated: one Anjouan licence covers five brands, one Curaçao certificate covers three, and a revoked licence covers three more. This page sets out the groups our files actually support, shows how far two siblings can diverge in their own terms, and flags the one thing the registers do not tell us — which is, awkwardly for the word in the title, ownership.

What casino operators means in a register entry

The wording of a Curaçao certificate is precise: it certifies that a domain is operated by a named company, incorporated locally with a stated company number, licensed under a stated number, granted on a stated date. The Anjouan public register gives a licence number, a company, a status, an issue date and an expiry.

Both registers therefore name an operator of record. Neither names a shareholder, a parent company, a beneficial owner or a group structure, and our files contain no field for any of those. So when this page says that two brands share a company, it means the same company is named as operator in a register lookup on a stated day. It does not mean we have traced ownership, and we will not dress a company name up as one. Casino operators in the sense the registers use the word are entities holding permissions; who stands behind them is a question these documents do not answer.

With that stated, the register-level groupings are solid, checkable by anyone with the numbers, and quite enough to change how a shortlist reads.

One Anjouan licence, five brands

The largest group in our data sits under a single Anjouan number: ALSI-202508056-FI2, held by Novatrix SRL, issued 25 August 2025, expiring 24 August 2027, read on 26 August 2026. Five brands appear under it: Oshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum, Winz.io and Bitkingz.

That is five sites a reader could plausibly meet as alternatives to one another, all resolving to one permission. Those five are the clearest case in our data of casino operators and brand names coming apart. And here is the part that makes the group worth a table rather than a sentence: their own documents differ substantially, and so do our ratings of them.

A two-point spread inside one licence, and almost all of it is our reading coverage rather than anything about the licence: Winz.io is the only one of the five with no verification clause we could capture, and it is also the only one with a markedly shorter country list. The ceilings that differ across the group are collected in the ceilings that differ inside one licence group.

The identification clauses diverge too. Oshi Casino allows winnings to be confiscated if information is not supplied within 40 days, clause 12. PlayAmo may require a phone call or video verification, clause 12. Slotum locks an account if the player cannot be reached within two weeks of a withdrawal request, clause 13. Bitkingz carries the same two-week rule plus utility bills and payment-system documents. One licence, four different descriptions of how a player is identified.

One Curaçao certificate, three brands, three different answers

The Curaçao side repeats the pattern, and the casino operators there are named with a company number attached, which makes the grouping harder to dispute. OGL/2024/1307/0748, company number 162990, Scores55 Tech B.V., granted 16 July 2024, Active on 26 August 2026, covers 7Bit Casino, KatsuBet and Mirax.

Their verification wording is not merely different, it points in opposite directions. Mirax’s terms describe verification as an obligatory procedure covering proof of identity, address and payment, clause 7, with non-provision preventing payment. KatsuBet’s FAQ says playing does not require account verification, with documents possible at the operator’s sole discretion before any payment. For 7Bit Casino we could read no verification clause at all. Ratings: Mirax 5.7, 7Bit Casino 4.2, KatsuBet 3.8. Mirax also states a 10,000 euro weekly ceiling at clause 8, where the other two state none we could find.

Four further Curaçao groups follow the same shape. Santeda International B.V., company 151296, under OGL/2024/1798/1048, covers Rolletto, Goldenbet and Velobet. Ryker B.V., company 154186, under OGL/2024/1800/1049, covers Jackbit and Freshbet. Moon Technologies B.V., company 152185, under OGL/2023/111/0069, covers Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io, rated 7.5 and 4.5. Uno Digital Media B.V., company 157147, under OGL/2024/1267/0760, covers CryptoLeo and Nine Casino, rated 7.2 and 6.1, with CryptoLeo stating a 50,000 USDT monthly ceiling at clause 7.9 and Nine Casino stating none.

The group where the licence is revoked

One grouping has to be read differently from the rest, because it is the only one where the permission behind the casino operators named in it is no longer current. OGL/2023/103/0067, company number 151791, Rabidi N.V., granted 5 February 2024, appears in the certificate portal as Revoked, and it covers three brands: Betriot, Casinoly and Zet Casino.

Our scoring file treats a revocation as disqualifying rather than as a deduction. All three score zero on the licence component, all three are refused a rating with the reason licence revoked or removed from the register, and all three carry the flag marking them as not to be listed. Two more records share that treatment: BC.Game, revoked under Small House B.V., and Bets.io, revoked under Bets Entertainment N.V. Coinplay’s certificate is also revoked, under Envision Digital N.V.

We are stating what a register said on a given day and what our own file does with it. We are not saying anything about whether those sites are operating, what a revocation was for, or what any of it means for a player’s position, because none of that is in the documents we hold. The mechanics of the revoked, removed, not-valid and not-found replies are separated out in how a licence string is checked against a register.

Company names that are numbers, and names that echo

Three holders in our Anjouan data have no name in the ordinary sense. Metaspins’ Anjouan entry, ALSI-202606048-FI2, is held by 3-102-959384 SRL. Betcoin.ag’s ALSI-202605043-FI2 is held by 3-102-961387 SRL. LeeBet’s ALSI-202510054-FI2 is held by 3-102-937610 SRL. A registration identifier standing in for a trading name is a perfectly ordinary corporate fact, and it is also a reminder of how little a holder name can convey on its own.

At the other extreme, names echo closely enough to mislead. Bspin’s licence is held by Pixel Gaming Limited, ALSI-092404013-FI2. Empire.io’s is held by Pixel Entertainment Limited, ALSI-132405042-FI3. Two different licences, two different brands, two companies sharing a first word. Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io are operated by Moon Technologies B.V.; Gamdom’s Anjouan entry names Moon Revolution Limitada. Thrill appears as Gravity Unleashed B.V. in Curaçao and Gravity Unleashed Limitada in Anjouan, which looks like the same business in two jurisdictions but is two separate registrations we should not merge on the strength of a name.

The lesson is narrow and useful: match casino operators by licence number and company number, never by how the company is called. Company numbers are what let us group 7Bit, KatsuBet and Mirax with confidence, and what stops us from grouping the two Pixels or the two Moons at all.

There is a practical version of that rule for anyone checking a footer. Copy the number, not the name. A number can be pasted into a register lookup and either resolves or does not; a name has to be judged, and judging names is where a reader ends up deciding that two unrelated companies are the same business because both begin with the same word, or that two registrations of one business are two businesses because one ends in B.V. and the other in Limitada. Our own grouping tables were built on company numbers for exactly that reason, and where a company number was missing we left the brand ungrouped rather than guessing.

A holder with no number, and a number with no operator

Two edge cases in our library show the field boundaries from opposite sides. JustBit and Boomerang.bet both carry the holder Casbit Group N.V. with no licence number recorded, no status and no register confirmation. So we have a company name for two brands and nothing to look it up with — a holder without a number.

The reverse case is Roobet, where the register knows the casino operators and our capture of the site knows nothing. Its operator record carries a null licence, a null verification clause, an empty coin list and the value none for whether the site’s own pages could be read at all. Yet the certificate portal, asked about roobet.com, returns Raw Entertainment B.V., company number 157205, OGL/2024/687/0427, granted 31 July 2024, Active, and the Anjouan register adds ALSI-202507005 under Ultima Spins Ltd, valid to 16 July 2027. A number and an operator with no readable site behind them, in our files at least.

Both cases argue the same thing. The register and the operator’s own pages are separate sources that fail separately, and a page that uses only one of them will have holes it cannot see. Which is why every record here carries a field saying which of the two we managed to read: 38 live, 41 from a stored copy, and 21 where nothing could be captured.

What the grouping changes for a reader

Three practical consequences of reading casino operators rather than brand names, all of them checkable without taking our word for anything.

An alternatives list can be a family. Five of our records sit under one Anjouan number and three under one Curaçao number. If a shortlist puts two of them side by side as substitutes, the substitution is thinner than it looks — the permission, and the company holding it, are identical.

Country lists travel with the group. Oshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum and Bitkingz publish lists of 224, 217, 216 and 218 entries, and 7Bit Casino publishes 216 while Mirax publishes 220. The near-duplication across two separate holders is set out in the near-identical country lists these siblings publish.

The clause is still per brand. This is the one that cuts the other way. Sharing a licence does not mean sharing terms: inside the Novatrix group the ceilings run from 4,000 euro a day to 15,000 a week, and inside the Scores55 group one brand calls verification obligatory while another says play needs none. Read the clause for the site you are actually on, never for its sibling. Shared casino operators predict the permission and the country list far better than they predict the ceiling or the document deadline, and the ceiling and the deadline are what a player meets. Which identification channels each brand reserves is set out in the identification channels each brand reserves.

Our records, grouped by what a register returned rather than by how a site brands itself, start at holders behind the top no KYC casinos.