How many operators there really are once you count companies instead of logos

Written by Owen Marsh

A comparison table with twenty rows looks like twenty decisions. Read the licence line in each row instead of the logo at the top of it, and the count starts falling. The brands are the retail layer. The company that holds the money, drafts the terms and decides whether a withdrawal is approved sits underneath, and it is frequently the same company in four rows at once.

This page counts operators the way a register counts them: by registration, not by wordmark. Every figure below comes from the operators’ own terms and from the Curaçao and Anjouan licence registers, read across a library of 100 brands on 26 August 2026.

What a licence number is attached to

Neither Curaçao nor Anjouan licenses a brand. Both license a legal person — a B.V., an N.V., an SRL, a Limitada — and that company is then free to run as many customer-facing sites as it wants under the one authorisation. The register entry names the company and the number. It does not list the trading names, which is why the brands can be presented as competitors while sharing a single line in the register.

So the honest unit of comparison is the registration, and the first thing that unit does is shrink the market.

Nine numbers, twenty-four brands

Of the 100 brands in the library, 68 print a licence number somewhere in their terms or footer. The other 32 print none, and that is its own answer. But the 68 numbers are not 68 authorisations: strip the duplicates and only 53 distinct numbers remain. Nine of those 53 carry more than one brand, and between them they account for 24 of the 68.

Registration	Register	Company named	Brands on it
ALSI-202508056-FI2	Anjouan	Novatrix SRL	Oshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum, Winz.io, Bitkingz
OGL/2024/1307/0748	Curaçao	Scores55 Tech	7BitCasino, KatsuBet, Mirax
OGL/2024/1798/1048	Curaçao	Santeda International B.V.	Rolletto, Goldenbet, Velobet
OGL/2023/103/0067	Curaçao — marked revoked	Rabidi N.V.	Betriot, Casinoly, Zet Casino
OGL/2023/111/0069	Curaçao	Moon Technologies B.V.	Bitcasino.io, Livecasino.io
OGL/2024/1267/0760	Curaçao	Uno Digital Media B.V.	CryptoLeo, Nine Casino
OGL/2024/1800/1049	Curaçao	Ryker B.V.	Jackbit, Freshbet
ALSI-202508047-FI2	Anjouan	Sorta Group Limitada	Fairspin, Weiss
8048/JAZ	Curaçao eGaming	Not printed	LTC Casino, Primedice

The extreme case is the first row. One Anjouan registration, ALSI-202508056-FI2, held by Novatrix SRL, sits behind five separate casino brands with five separate designs, five separate bonus offers and five separate places on the “top ten” lists that recommend them next to each other.

Picking a second brand off that list is not a second opinion. It is the same counterparty with a different header.

The four-brand cluster a UK player meets first

7BitCasino, mBit Casino, KatsuBet and Mirax appear on almost every English-language shortlist, and their terms name the same company: Curaçao registration 162990 under licence OGL/2024/1307/0748. The register spells the company Scores55 Tech N.V.; the brands’ own terms print it as B.V. We have followed the register. Same registration, same registered address in Willemstad, same authorisation.

What gives the shared drafting away is the small print rather than the branding. KatsuBet and Mirax carry an identical withdrawal cap of 0.14 BTC a week and 0.56 BTC a month, matching to the decimal; 7Bit sets its own at 0.16 BTC a week. The dormancy charge is worded the same way at all of them and only the figure moves — 0.4 mBTC at 7Bit, a minimum of 25 EUR at Mirax, 0.00014 BTC at KatsuBet. Four marketing departments do not converge on the same sentence by accident.

What a shared number does not prove

Two brands on one registration are commercially one counterparty. That is the whole of the claim, and it is worth keeping it that small.

It does not prove the sites share a wallet, a games server or a support desk. It does not prove that a decision at one brand is automatically applied at the other, although the identical clause numbering makes that easy to arrange. And it does not say anything about quality: a company running five brands may run them well. The point is narrower — that a list of five is a list of one when the thing you are diversifying against is the operator itself.

Nor does the absence of a shared number prove independence. Thirty-two of the 100 brands publish no number at all, so they cannot be grouped even when they belong together. Common ownership through a parent that never appears in either register is invisible to this method entirely. The 24 figure is a floor, not a total.

Five numbers the register marks as withdrawn

Checking a number against the register does more than group brands; it occasionally contradicts the brand. Five of the 100 print a licence number that the Curaçao register records as revoked: BC.Game, Bets.io, Betriot, Casinoly and Zet Casino. The last three share one entry — OGL/2023/103/0067, held by Rabidi N.V. — so a single revoked authorisation is being displayed on three separate sites.

A revoked entry does not mean the site has stopped taking deposits, and none of the five had. It means the number in the footer no longer describes a live authorisation, and that the register — not the footer — is the thing worth reading.

How to check a number in about a minute

Both registers are open, free and searchable, and neither requires an account.

• Find the number in the terms or the footer. Curaçao Gaming Authority numbers take the form OGL/year/nnn/nnnn; the older Curaçao eGaming numbers look like 8048/JAZ and belong to a master-licence system that has been closing down. Anjouan numbers start ALSI-.
• Look the number up in the register that issued it and read the company name and the status, not just the fact that a certificate loads.
• Search the same company name against the other brands on your shortlist. This is the step that collapses a list of ten into a list of six.
• Treat a prefix with no digits after it as no number at all. It cannot be looked up, and one brand in the library publishes exactly that.

A number that resolves proves that a fee has been paid to a regulator. It does not tell you who answers when a payout stalls, which is a separate question with a separate and much less comfortable answer.

What this changes about a shortlist

Three things, none of them dramatic.

Spreading a balance across four brands from the same registration spreads nothing. Comparing bonus percentages between two brands on one number compares two offers written by one legal department, which is why the wagering terms so often match while the headline figures differ. And a second account opened as a fallback after a dispute is a fallback in name only.

The clauses that decide what your balance is worth — weekly caps, dormancy fees and forfeiture windows — travel with the company, not with the logo. Every number quoted on this page, together with the clause it came from where the operator numbers its clauses, is listed on our sources page.

Questions this raises

Is it against the rules for one company to run several casino brands?

No. Neither register limits the number of trading names a licensee may operate, and white-label arrangements make it routine. The issue is not legality but the impression created when the same operator appears five times on a page that presents itself as a comparison.

Does a Curaçao or Anjouan licence do anything for a UK player?

Neither is a UK Gambling Commission licence, and neither carries the obligations a British licence carries. What the entry gives you is identification: a company name you can search and a status you can read. That is genuinely useful, and it is the limit of what it is.

Why do the register and the terms spell the company differently?

It happens often enough to be worth expecting — N.V. against B.V., a missing accent, a shortened form. Where the two disagree we have used the register, because that is the document the regulator maintains. Where a company name appears only in the terms and in no register, we say so rather than treating the terms as confirmation.