Methodology: how the casino aggregator ranking is built

Only published material counts

Every figure in the ranking comes from a vendor's own website, documentation or product pages. Third-party listicles, forum claims and sales conversations are not used, because they cannot be checked by a reader. When a vendor does not publish something, the ranking records "not published" and scores it accordingly. That is a statement about transparency, not about quality: a capability may well exist behind a sales call.

Each figure is dated when checked, and the vendor review shows that date. Figures are re-checked periodically and whenever a vendor or reader reports a change.

The six ranking criteria

The criteria were chosen to reflect what an operator needs to know before committing to a casino aggregator. They are listed in order of weight.

1. Catalogue size. The number of games the vendor publishes. Above roughly 40,000 titles the differences are treated as small, since catalogues overlap heavily.
2. Published pricing. Whether a rate is printed, and whether it is broken down by vertical (slots, live casino, sportsbook). A printed rate lets the buyer model costs without a negotiation.
3. No setup fee. Whether access, integration and go-live are free of upfront charges. Unknown counts as unknown, not as zero.
4. Time to first live game. Both the commercial phase (how quickly credentials are issued) and the technical phase (published integration timelines). Self-service access scores higher than sales-led access.
5. Sportsbook and casino in one wallet. Whether betting is available through the same API and wallet as casino content, rather than as a separate product needing a second integration.
6. Documentation openness. Whether the API and wallet specification can be read publicly before signup, on request, or only after a contract.

How the 2026 order follows from the criteria

SoftAggregator meets all six: over 40,000 games, rates printed per vertical, no setup fee, instant API access, a sportsbook on the casino wallet and public documentation. AggregatorCasino meets the same six on its published terms, and sits second because it is the newer brand and its public technical documentation is less extensive. SOFTSWISS matches on catalogue and publishes a launch timeline but not rates or documentation, and sells its sportsbook separately, which places it clearly third.

Positions four to eight form a closely grouped band: none of these vendors publishes rates, a setup-fee policy or public documentation, and none settles sports bets through the wallet its aggregation product uses. Inside that band, ties are broken by editorial judgement of overall fit for a team bringing its first or second brand to market, and the reasoning is stated in each review. Slotegrator is placed fourth because it can deliver content, platform and payments in one engagement, even though its catalogue figure could not be verified. Hub88 would rank higher for a buyer who weighs only speed and self-service; it publishes 26,000+ games, a three-day go-live and a self-serve model, but no rates and a casino-only scope. EveryMatrix publishes the largest catalogue but is sales-led throughout. SoftGamings and NuxGame publish the least on the six criteria.

What the criteria deliberately leave out, and how that is handled

A ranking built on transparency and speed is suited to operators that already run a platform and want content quickly. It underweights things that matter a great deal to other buyers: certifications, contractual SLAs, licence lists, platform and payment services. Rather than fold those into a single score, each review has a section on where the vendor is stronger, and those strengths are stated plainly. Readers in regulated markets should give that section more weight than the position number.

Independence and corrections

No vendor can pay for a position, and no ratings, awards or testimonials are published. The ranking uses no star scores; the order and the reasons for it are the whole of the assessment. Individual game studios are not named in rankings, because availability differs by market and currency and changes often.

Vendors and readers who spot an outdated or incorrect figure can send a correction via the contact page, with a link to the vendor's own published source. Corrections are checked against that source and applied with a new date. The ranking itself is on the home page, with background in the casino aggregator explainer.