How we rate CS2 gambling sites

Every rating on this site comes from the same six criteria, each scored out of 10 and weighted by how much it matters to someone putting real skins or crypto on a site. There's no separate method for sites we like, and no separate track for sites that pay us more.

This page sets out what we test, what each criterion covers, and how the numbers turn into the star rating at the top of every review.

What testing a site involves

A review starts with an account. One of us signs up the way any reader would and uses the site long enough to see how it behaves on an ordinary day, not just in its launch week. In practice that means:

• depositing with at least one cryptocurrency and, where the site supports it, with CS2 skins
• claiming the welcome offer and reading the full bonus terms, wagering small print included
• playing each of the main game modes, and verifying a sample of rounds on the provably fair page by hashing the revealed server seed ourselves
• withdrawing in crypto and as skins, and noting anything that slows it down
• contacting support with real questions, including at least one awkward one about limits, KYC or a delayed withdrawal
• reading the terms of service, the restricted countries list and whatever responsible gambling options exist

We also read what players say about the site in public, on Reddit and review platforms. One angry post doesn't move a score. The same complaint turning up again and again over several months does, especially when it doesn't match what the site tells us.

The six criteria and their weights

The weighting is deliberate. Trust and payouts add up to 46% because those are the two things that cost you money when they fail. A flashy bonus can't make up for a site that sits on withdrawals.

Trust and safety (28%)

This is the heaviest criterion and the one we spend the most time on. It covers how long the site has been running, whether the operator can be identified and what it discloses about itself, how provably fair is implemented, how account security works, and how the site behaves when something goes wrong for a player.

What pushes it up: a long track record without serious unresolved incidents, a provably fair system that covers every game and is easy to verify, two-factor login, terms written in plain language, and a habit of fixing problems in public rather than deleting complaints.

What drags it down: missing or vague fairness pages, terms that let the site void winnings for loosely defined reasons, ID checks that only show up at withdrawal, an operator that hides behind a chat bot, and anything that suggests the site is relaxed about phishing clones or fake support accounts. A licence claim we can't verify counts for nothing. A missing licence isn't automatically disqualifying, since many CS2 sites don't publish one, but it means the other trust signals have to carry more weight.

One hard rule sits on top of the formula. A site that scores below 5 for trust doesn't go in our rankings, whatever its other scores look like.

Payout speed (18%)

We measure the time from clicking withdraw to having the coins or skins, and how often something gets in the way. Crypto and skins are scored together but judged differently, because they fail for different reasons.

On a good site, approved crypto withdrawals usually clear within minutes. Slow manual approval, high minimums, surprise fees, or a KYC request nobody mentioned at sign-up all cost points.

For skins the questions are availability and reliability. Is there a decent selection to withdraw? Does a P2P seller actually accept? What happens when they don't? Valve's Trade Protection, which since mid-2025 lets a trade be reversed for seven days, forced every skin site to change how deposits and withdrawals work. Sites that tell you up front when funds or items will be released score better than ones that leave you guessing for a week.

Bonus and value (16%)

The welcome offer is a small part of this. We care more about what a regular player gets over a month: rakeback, daily or level-up cases, rain, races and so on.

We also work out what an offer is worth after wagering. A 100% deposit match with a 10x requirement sounds generous and often isn't, so we score the realistic value, not the banner. Points come off when wagering terms are hard to find, when free rewards need a deposit or ID check nobody mentioned, and when case prices put the expected value well below what you pay. Points go on for clear terms and for value that doesn't depend on grinding through a VIP ladder.

Game variety (14%)

More modes isn't automatically better. A site with eight half-finished originals scores below one with four modes that work properly.

We look at which of the common modes are offered (case opening, case battles, upgrader, crash, roulette, coinflip, jackpot, plinko, mines, dice), how many cases there are and at what price points, whether odds are listed for every item, and whether provably fair covers every game or only a few. Slots and live tables count for a little. We review these as CS2 sites first, though, and a sportsbook won't rescue a thin case selection.

User experience (12%)

The everyday stuff. How quickly pages load. Whether your balance is shown in real money terms or only in site coins. How easy it is to find the bonus terms or the fairness page, and how the whole thing works on a phone. We test on desktop and mobile browsers. Deposit pop-ups that won't go away, a chat you can't mute and fiddly withdrawal screens all lose points.

Support (12%)

We contact support on every site more than once, at different times of day. A good score needs a human reply within a reasonable time, an answer that addresses the actual question, and a way to escalate when the first answer doesn't help. Canned replies, looping bots and agents who can't explain their own site's terms pull it down.

We ask about deposit limits and self-exclusion on purpose. How a site answers those questions says a lot about how it treats players who need help.

How six scores become a star rating

Each criterion is scored from 0 to 10, to one decimal place. We multiply each score by its weight, add the results to get a total out of 10, then halve it to get the rating out of 5. Here's a worked example for a made-up site:

Half of 7.52 is 3.76, which rounds to 3.8 stars.

The lead reviewer can then move the final rating by up to 0.1 of a star in either direction, for things the formula handles badly: a site that has just fixed a long-running withdrawal problem, say, or a pile of fresh complaints we're still looking into. The margin is small on purpose. Anything bigger has to come through the criterion scores, where you can see it in the breakdown on each review.

What the stars mean

How often we re-check

Every site we list is re-checked at least once a quarter. That means a fresh round of deposits and withdrawals, a look at the current bonus and its terms, and a check that the provably fair page still works the way the review says. Each review shows the date it was last updated.

We also re-check outside that schedule when something significant changes:

• a new owner or operator, or a rebrand
• new payment providers, withdrawal limits or KYC rules
• rewritten terms of service or bonus terms
• a run of similar complaints from players, including readers who write to us
• changes on Valve's side that affect trading, like the 2025 Trade Protection update

Scores move in both directions. If a site has slipped, the review says so and the score changes with the update.

What we don't do

• We don't sell placements in scores. No operator can pay to raise a score, move up the table or have a criticism softened. The ranking order follows the star ratings.
• We don't show reviews to operators before publishing. A site that disputes something can contact us afterwards like anyone else, and we'll correct facts that are wrong.
• We don't score sites we haven't used. No ratings built from a press release or a marketing deck.
• We don't take a bonus at face value. It's scored on what it's worth after wagering.
• We don't hide affiliate links. They're marked as sponsored, and our affiliate disclosure explains how we're paid.

If you think we've got a score wrong, tell us through the contact page, and bring specifics: dates, screenshots, what support told you. That's the kind of report that gets a site re-checked early. How we handle corrections is in our editorial policy, and you can see the current results on the rankings page.