Review Methodology — Winigreat

The weights behind each overall score are not hidden in a black box. They are published inside every review and shown as a short table beneath the headline score. We weight licensing and safety at twenty-five percent, payment reliability at twenty percent, bonus terms at fifteen percent, game range at fifteen percent, mobile experience at fifteen percent, and support quality at ten percent.

These weights reflect what readers tell us matters when they contact us about an operator, not what maximises affiliate commission. The weights are the same for every operator we review. If an operator asks us to reweight for its particular strengths, we decline — a scoring model that bends to the subject of the scoring is not a scoring model.

The weights are reviewed once a year. If they change, every published review is rescored with the new weights at the same time; we do not grandfather old scores. The change itself is announced in the editorial update feed with a short note explaining what moved and why.

Testing starts with an account registration using a Canadian address and a small test deposit. From that account we attempt deposits and withdrawals through at least three payment methods, trigger at least one promotion, play across at least three product categories, and submit at least two support queries at different hours of the day.

Everything we see is logged with timestamps in a shared internal spreadsheet. The timestamps let later readers see when a specific claim was first observed and whether it still holds. If a payment method's withdrawal time changes between two visits, we can show both numbers rather than overwriting the older figure.

We also run a basic accessibility check at two-hundred percent zoom, with keyboard-only navigation, and with a screen reader at a shallow depth. We are not accessibility specialists, but we flag obvious failures such as interactive elements with no keyboard focus. These checks catch many of the problems that cause real-world complaints from readers with low vision or motor impairments.

The overall score is a weighted average across the six categories listed in the weights table. We publish the component scores alongside the overall figure so that a reader can see which categories dragged the number up or down. A single strong category cannot carry a weak review, and a single weak category can cap the overall score if it is one of the three capping categories.

The three capping categories are licensing, payment reliability, and support quality. A bad enough result in any one of them caps the overall score regardless of how the other categories performed. This prevents an operator from gaming the model by excelling at easy-to-measure categories while failing on the ones that actually affect readers.

Our method has limits. We play with a cautious bankroll, so VIP-tier features and high-stakes play are reviewed from the operator's documentation rather than hands-on. We review the English-language interface primarily. Our test accounts are opened from Canadian addresses, so operators that behave differently for players in other jurisdictions may score higher or lower from our vantage than from yours.

We cannot test anything that would require spending money we would be unwilling to lose, including jackpot pursuit, high-stakes live dealer tables, or multi-month VIP cycles. If an operator advertises a feature at that level, we document it from publicly available material and we say in the review that we did not test it ourselves.

Across each of the six scoring categories, we evaluate the same specific sub-criteria. Licensing is scored on the authority of the licence, the enforceability of complaints, and the operator's compliance record. Payment reliability covers deposit methods, withdrawal methods, speed, and the frequency of complaints about delayed cashouts. Bonus terms are scored on headline value, playthrough requirements, wagering contribution, and the fairness of exclusions and expiry rules.

Game range is scored on both breadth and depth: the number of titles, the variety of providers, and whether the catalogue includes meaningful live dealer and sports options. Mobile experience is scored across first-paint speed on a mid-tier Android device, the quality of the native app if one exists, and the mobile checkout flow. Support quality covers response time, accuracy, and the knowledge of the agents answering typical reader questions.

Any criterion that cannot be measured without putting real money at risk is replaced with a documentation-based score and flagged as such. We would rather have a scoring entry labelled 'from documentation' than a hands-on observation that we cannot responsibly produce.