Every casino on this site gets a score out of 10. It is a weighted average of six criteria, and the weights are published here so you can check whether our conclusions follow from our own method.
The weights
| Criterion | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Licensing & trust | 30% | Which authority, what recourse, and how the terms treat players |
| Payout speed | 20% | Stated and observed withdrawal times, fees, caps, KYC friction |
| Bonus value | 17.5% | Real value after wagering, expiry, max bet and cashout caps |
| Game selection | 15% | Library size, provider quality, coverage of what players here play |
| Mobile experience | 10% | Performance on mid-range Android, data use, no-app browser play |
| Customer support | 7.5% | Availability, competence on specific questions, language coverage |
Trust carries the largest weight deliberately. A casino with a huge bonus and no reliable route to a payout is worth less than a modest one that pays.
What each score means
Licensing & trust. We check the licence verifies on the regulator’s own domain, what recourse the authority actually offers, and we read the terms for dormant account policies, discretionary voiding clauses and withdrawal caps. A Curaçao licence caps this score in the mid range; an Anjouan-only licence caps it lower. National African licences score highest.
Payout speed. Stated processing times, fees, monthly caps, and how much KYC friction sits between a request and the money. Slow but predictable beats fast-when-it-works.
Bonus value. Not the headline. A 200% match at 40x with a three-day expiry and a 25x cashout cap scores below a 100% match at 35x over thirty days. We compute what the offer is worth to a realistic player, not a maximal one.
Game selection. Library size matters less than coverage. A casino serving Africa without crash games is missing the category a large share of players here actually start with, regardless of how many slots it lists.
Mobile experience. Browser play without an app, performance on mid-range Android, and data consumption. This weighting is higher than it would be on a European site because it matters more here.
Customer support. We ask a specific question — usually about proof of address for a particular country — and judge the answer.
What we do not score
Design. A good-looking casino that does not pay is not a good casino.
Size of the game count. Six thousand titles from three studios is not better than two thousand from thirty.
How much commission we earn. See affiliate disclosure.
Verdict bands
| Score | Verdict |
|---|---|
| 9.0+ | Excellent |
| 8.0–8.9 | Very good |
| 7.0–7.9 | Good |
| 6.0–6.9 | Fair |
| 5.0–5.9 | Mixed |
| below 5.0 | Weak |
A casino below 6.0 stays listed only if there is a specific reason to know about it, and the review says so plainly.
Re-reviews
Bonus terms change, licences lapse, ownership changes and payout performance drifts. Every review carries a “last updated” date. We aim to re-check listed casinos at least twice a year, and immediately when something material changes.
If a score here looks wrong to you — particularly if you have had an experience that contradicts it — write to editorial@onlinecasino-africa.com. Player reports of withheld payouts are the most useful signal we get, and they have moved scores before.
The honest limitation
We do not have a testing lab. Our payout timings come from stated terms, our own account activity, and reader reports rather than a controlled sample of hundreds of withdrawals. Where we are inferring rather than measuring, the review says so.