What the score covers
JetScore is our editorial score out of 10. Version 2.3 assesses bonus conditions, withdrawal processing and limits, recorded public-site tasks, support information and documented player controls. Bonus conditions can use checked public terms or an explicitly attributed account or partner-offer report with a completed rule audit. Author reports may also support withdrawal limits and, when no published ordinary processing window has been established, approval or dispatch times. Each assessment identifies its evidence basis, dates and scope.
Reported withdrawals provide observations from the author's account, not a statistical measure of payment reliability. JetScore does not assess game fairness, support performance or whether account controls work. It is not a safety certification, a player rating or confirmation that you can legally play from your country.
The thresholds below are CasinoBonusJet’s editorial choices, not industry standards or statistical estimates. Affiliate commission, list position, popularity and reader votes are not scoring inputs.
Six fixed weights
| Category | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Bonus conditions | 30% | 3 |
| Withdrawal conditions | 25% | 2 |
| Game catalogue | 20% | 1 |
| Public-site usability | 10% | 2 |
| Support information | 10% | 2 |
| Player-control information | 5% | 2 |
The 12 criteria use their stated anchors from 0 to 10, including 2.5 and 7.5 where specified. Criteria have equal weight within their category. The combined catalogue criterion carries the full 20% game-category weight. We multiply each complete category mean by its fixed weight and add the six results. We round only the final total to one decimal place; displayed category means are also rounded for reading.
JetScore = bonus × 0.30 + payments × 0.25 + slots × 0.20 + usability × 0.10 + support × 0.10 + player controls × 0.05
A zero means the evidence meets the lowest stated anchor. The promotion rubric allows two kinds of qualification at 7.5: broad bonus-wallet claims qualified by published offer-specific restrictions, and no-wagering cashback wording with clearly disclosed 2×–3× turnover. These allowances do not remove the restrictions or establish their purpose. Incompatible offer-specific values remain material conflicts.
When we publish a number
An assessment must have dated primary-source research, a matched operator and domain identity, and a licence claim checked against a regulator record. These are research prerequisites, not bonus points or guarantees. A failed or unresolved prerequisite withholds the overall number.
An author report can support a scoped bonus assessment, withdrawal limits and the explicit processing fallback. We name the author and identify the account or partner offer. Bonus reports require separate records for the release mechanism, six welcome-rule fields and a comparison of two promotions; they are not labelled as public-source audits. Processing uses the longest reported approval or dispatch interval; arrival at a bank or wallet remains separate. Reports cannot establish corporate identity or licensing, override conflicting rules for the same offer or satisfy the public research prerequisites. A shared-limit report is not an independent check of each brand's terms.
Every required criterion must have enough evidence to apply its stated anchor. Unknown conditions remain unknown: we do not assign them values, fill gaps with averages or transfer weight to the categories with evidence. An unassessed criterion withholds its category score and the overall number.
Welcome-rule transparency distinguishes basic terms, partially described restrictions and fully specified rules. Established deposit, award and expiry terms earn at least 5. Describing all additional restriction areas can raise that to 7.5 even when some exact values remain unknown; 10 requires all six fields to be fully disclosed and consistent. The same anchors apply to the separately labelled public-source and author-report audits. An incomplete source review or author report leaves the criterion unassessed; missing evidence is not a proven omission.
“In review” means an assessment has started but does not yet meet these requirements. Completed categories can still show their findings. “Not rated” means no assessment is available. Imported historical ratings are never relabelled as JetScore.
Some criteria deliberately assess published availability. A stated complaint route, gambling-limit facility or self-exclusion option can earn full points without a support conversation or account test. Those scores do not measure response quality or enforcement. Interface-task criteria require the same tasks to be recorded on desktop and mobile. An untested viewport leaves the criterion unassessed; it does not lower the casino’s score.
The v2.3 rubric
Apply the anchors to the specified scope and complete any required source review first. If a documented finding meets the zero-point anchor, use it even when other observations are positive. If none of the anchors can be established, leave the criterion unassessed. Claims that a service or limit is absent require evidence. Recording that a required rule is omitted from a complete set of checked public sources establishes a disclosure gap, not the absence of that rule elsewhere.
Bonus conditions · 30%
Welcome wagering
Score the published first-deposit wagering multiplier. Record its base alongside it: bonus only or deposit plus bonus. Do not convert an ordinary multiplier to a bonus-only equivalent for scoring. Equal multipliers on different bases can require different turnover; this criterion does not measure total bonus value or expected loss. For an attributed author account report of a locked bonus released as stakes × house edge × release rate, assess the turnover needed to release the full bonus. A documented upper house-edge bound can establish the more-than-100× anchor without inventing an exact multiplier; a bound spanning different anchors remains unassessed. A confirmed zero release rate means the bonus cannot be released and earns 0. Released funds having no further wagering does not make the whole locked bonus wager-free. An unknown multiplier, base or release input remains unassessed.
- 10/10
- Up to 35×, including a confirmed wager-free offer.
- 7.5/10
- More than 35× and up to 60×.
- 5/10
- More than 60× and up to 80×.
- 2.5/10
- More than 80× and up to 100×.
- 0/10
- More than 100×.
Welcome-rule transparency
Read the welcome offer and all relevant linked public terms, or record a complete, attributed author account report for the specific offer in a separate author-rules audit. Author evidence does not establish public disclosure. Core fields are qualifying deposit, match and bonus cap, and expiry. Additional fields are maximum bet, eligible games/contribution, and cashout restrictions. A rule that says a restriction applies but omits its value is partially disclosed, not absent or fully disclosed. General bonus-wallet marketing qualified by a welcome-specific restriction is recorded as partial disclosure; incompatible statements about the same welcome condition are unresolved conflicts. Explicitly unrestricted conditions are fully disclosed. Incomplete captures, unchecked relevant links or access failures leave the public audit unassessed; incomplete author reports leave the author audit unassessed. Unknown values stay unknown.
- 10/10
- All six fields are fully disclosed and consistent.
- 7.5/10
- All three core fields are disclosed, all three additional fields are fully or partially disclosed, and no unresolved conflict remains. An explicit precedence rule can resolve a difference.
- 5/10
- All three core fields are disclosed, but additional coverage is thinner or an unresolved conflict prevents a higher score.
- 2.5/10
- Some usable conditions are disclosed, but the three core fields are not all established.
- 0/10
- The complete review finds no usable conditions.
Promotion consistency
Compare the welcome offer and one other advertised promotion with their detailed terms. An attributed author account report may supply a separate comparison with both named headlines, mechanics and findings; this is not a public-source comparison. An unchecked promotion or unknown material award condition remains unassessed. Distinguish broad bonus-wallet marketing from the rules of a specific offer. This rubric permits the qualifications listed at 7.5, while retaining the actual restrictions. A cashback requirement is not automatically an anti-money-laundering rule, and separate deposit turnover must not be substituted for cashback wagering. Keep a locked bonus release formula separate from any additional wagering on released funds or a separate rakeback offer. Apply the lowest applicable anchor across the checked promotions.
- 10/10
- Both promotions agree with their detailed terms without a wording qualification.
- 7.5/10
- Differences are limited to general bonus-wallet claims qualified by documented offer-specific restrictions, or no-wagering cashback wording with a clearly disclosed 2×–3× turnover condition. Record every qualification; unknown restriction values remain unknown.
- 5/10
- Other differences are resolved by an explicit offer-specific exception or precedence rule.
- 2.5/10
- A difference remains, but it does not change the award, qualifying deposit, maximum bet, wagering amount or base, expiry, eligibility or cashout restrictions.
- 0/10
- An unresolved difference changes one of those material conditions, outside the stated qualifications. Incompatible offer-specific values are not covered by the general-marketing allowance.
Withdrawal conditions · 25%
Documented cashout limits
Use ordinary request and daily limits for a non-VIP player from published terms or a specific, attributed author account report. Label an author report and its scope separately: a shared-limit report is not independently checked terms for each brand and does not establish a shared operator. Conflicting published rules remain unresolved. An explicitly uncapped limit meets its threshold. These amounts are editorial thresholds, not industry benchmarks. USD thresholds require published USD equivalents or a dated conversion source. Unknown limits stay unknown; a known request limit from USD 500 to below USD 2,000 can earn 7.5 while the daily limit remains unknown. An unknown request limit, or a request limit of at least USD 2,000 with an unknown daily limit, remains unassessed.
- 10/10
- The request limit is at least USD 2,000 and the daily limit at least USD 5,000.
- 7.5/10
- The request limit is at least USD 500, below the upper anchor. The daily limit is recorded separately and does not add another threshold at this level.
- 5/10
- The request limit is at least USD 250 and below USD 500.
- 2.5/10
- Cash withdrawals are permitted, but the request limit is below USD 250.
- 0/10
- A published rule expressly disallows ordinary cash withdrawals.
Withdrawal processing time
Use the published ordinary operator-processing window after required verification when established, including indicative wording such as usually or up to. Use the upper end of an ordinary range and preserve its unit. A window whose upper end is 2–3 working or banking days earns 7.5; it is not a 72-calendar-hour maximum. Other working-day windows remain unassessed under this rubric. Exceptional extensions do not lower the score; record them separately. If no ordinary published window is established, an attributed author account report may supply the longest reported approval or dispatch interval in hours. Record why the fallback applies and keep an unknown interval unassessed. This account experience is not a published promise or a guarantee for other withdrawals. Bank or wallet arrival is separate and is never the processing input.
- 10/10
- The processing interval is less than 24 hours.
- 7.5/10
- The processing interval is 24 through 72 hours inclusive, or the published window has an upper end of 2–3 working or banking days.
- 5/10
- The processing interval exceeds 72 hours and is no longer than 7 calendar days.
- 2.5/10
- The processing interval exceeds 7 calendar days and is no longer than 14 calendar days.
- 0/10
- The processing interval exceeds 14 calendar days.
Game catalogue · 20%
Game catalogue, search and filters
Assess one combined catalogue task: record the visible game sections, search for a named game and open a provider catalogue on both desktop and mobile. An incomplete set of tasks remains unassessed. Use titles and providers known to be listed. Report the sampled games and sections; do not infer that most market titles are available or that games launch from finding their cards. General menu navigation is assessed separately.
- 10/10
- Game sections are clearly identified and both search and provider tasks succeed on both viewports without a workaround.
- 5/10
- Sections are identifiable and all tasks succeed, but a recorded search or filter workaround is needed.
- 0/10
- The full task set is recorded and search or provider browsing fails for a known listed item, or game sections cannot be identified.
Public-site usability · 10%
Read policies before registration
Try to reach the bonus, withdrawal and responsible-gaming policies while logged out.
- 10/10
- All three policy areas open with readable text before registration.
- 5/10
- Two open; a recorded registration barrier blocks the third.
- 0/10
- Recorded barriers block at least two of the three.
Desktop and mobile navigation
Record the same menu-to-content task on desktop and a mobile browser viewport. If either result is missing, leave this criterion unassessed. This does not claim physical-device, native-app or full accessibility testing.
- 10/10
- Both recorded tasks complete without a workaround or blocking layout problem.
- 5/10
- Both tasks complete, but at least one requires a recorded workaround for a layout or navigation problem.
- 0/10
- Both tasks are recorded and a layout or navigation problem blocks at least one.
Support information · 10%
Published contact routes
Assess the support routes documented on captured public pages. No response time, answer quality or agent availability is scored.
- 10/10
- A direct email address and live-chat route are both documented.
- 5/10
- One direct support route is documented in the captured contact policy.
- 0/10
- The policy explicitly states that direct support is unavailable.
Published complaint route
Check whether public terms provide a way to submit complaints, including ordinary support. A named external body, escalation stages and a deadline are not required for full points. This scores the stated route, not dispute outcomes. An incomplete source review remains unassessed.
- 10/10
- Complaints can be submitted through a stated support or dedicated route.
- 5/10
- Complaints are mentioned, but no submission route is identified.
- 0/10
- A complete source review finds no complaint information, or the policy expressly says complaints cannot be submitted.
Player-control information · 5%
Stated availability of gambling limits
Credit an explicit public statement that players can set or request gambling limits, through an account or support. A detailed settings path is not required. Record any exclusions; this does not test activation or enforcement. An incomplete source review remains unassessed.
- 10/10
- The casino states that players can set or request gambling limits.
- 5/10
- The policy discusses limiting play but does not say the casino offers a limit facility.
- 0/10
- A complete source review finds no limit information, or the policy expressly says limits are unavailable.
Stated availability of self-exclusion
Credit an explicit public statement that self-exclusion is available. A detailed activation timetable, duration list or reopening policy is not required for full points. This does not test enforcement; no request is sent. An incomplete source review remains unassessed.
- 10/10
- The casino states that self-exclusion is available.
- 5/10
- Self-exclusion is discussed without saying it is available at this casino.
- 0/10
- A complete source review finds no self-exclusion information, or the policy expressly says it is unavailable.
Dates, evidence and changes
The assessment date identifies when the rubric was applied. Public sources keep their check dates; author reports use the date the account information was reported, which may differ from the transaction date. A new layout or build does not refresh those dates, and a live source link may now show different terms.
Welcome wagering is scored by the published multiplier, with its calculation base stated separately. For example, 60× deposit plus bonus scores 7.5, but at a 200% match its required turnover equals 90× the bonus amount. The score does not make different bases financially equivalent. Cashout thresholds use USD equivalents only when the operator supplies them or a dated conversion source is recorded. An offer displayed in one session is not treated as a worldwide offer.
A locked bonus released gradually through play is not a wager-free award. For that mechanism, we use the confirmed release formula to establish the turnover needed to release the full locked amount. A supported lower bound strictly above 100× earns the existing zero-point wagering anchor. If the bound crosses scoring bands or an input is unknown, it remains unassessed. House-edge-dependent release is distinguished from wagering on funds already released; an illustrative game's RTP is not assigned to the whole catalogue.
Processing scores use an established published ordinary window after required verification, even when the author reports faster withdrawals. Where no such window has been established, the explicitly labelled author fallback applies the same hour thresholds to reported approval or dispatch time. It does not turn an account observation into a published deadline. Bank or wallet receipt time and unspecified verification status remain distinct. An upper end of 2–3 working or banking days earns 7.5 without being converted into 72 calendar hours; other working-day windows remain unassessed. A known request limit from USD 500 to below USD 2,000 can earn 7.5 with the daily limit recorded as unknown; an unknown limit cannot establish the 10-point anchor.
Before changing an assessment, we record the changed evidence and reasons. A change to the rubric or weights requires a new methodology version. Only complete scores with compatible versions and research scopes should be compared; an incomplete score must not be ranked as zero.
Version 2.0, introduced on 20 September 2026, changes the wagering bands and scoring base, grades partial welcome-rule disclosure, allows the stated cashback qualification and revises withdrawal thresholds. It combines title and provider discovery in one catalogue criterion and gives full points for published complaint routes and stated player controls. The six category weights remain unchanged. Earlier versions used different anchors, so their totals are not directly comparable.
Version 2.1, introduced on 21 September 2026, adds the stated working-day processing band and allows attributed author reports to support withdrawal limits. It clarifies the 7.5-point request-limit band when the daily limit is unknown. Other anchors and all weights remain unchanged.
Version 2.2, introduced on 23 September 2026, added the limited author-processing fallback and Spinko's newly supplied account evidence. It retained the public bonus-source requirement. The breakdown distinguishes an author-based processing result from a published window.
Version 2.3, introduced on 23 September 2026, adds the scoped author bonus audits and the progressive-release calculation described above. All six weights, numerical anchors and public research prerequisites remain unchanged. Existing assessments are carried forward with their original source dates and findings; BC.GAME adds the author's confirmed partner conditions and approval time. An author-based assessment is not a claim that all partner terms are publicly available before registration.
For a worked assessment, see Snatch’s JetScore breakdown, with its dated sources, public-rule findings and recorded interface tasks. How we review explains the wider editorial process and affiliate disclosure.