A SisterSitesNZ rating is built from five fixed inputs, in this order: a verified licence, a real withdrawal, the bonus terms as written, support that actually responds, and a clean complaint history. We weight those five inputs the same way for every brand on the site, we publish the working underneath the score, and we never adjust the order for any reason other than the evidence on the page. The point of this page is to show that working — so a reader can decide whether our scores are worth trusting before they trust them.
The methodology was designed for one specific job: rating casinos that sit inside operator networks. Most of the brands New Zealanders see online are not standalone companies. They are one of many fronts run by the same operator, sharing infrastructure, terms, payment rails and complaint queues. A rating that treats each brand as if it existed in isolation will mislead the reader, because the brand's real-world behaviour is the operator's behaviour. Everything below is built around that fact.
1. Licence verification
We do not accept the licence number printed in a casino's footer at face value. For every brand we cover, we open the regulator's public register — Malta Gaming Authority, Curaçao Gaming Control Board, the UK Gambling Commission, or, increasingly for the New Zealand market, the Department of Internal Affairs — and confirm three things: the registered operator name, the current status of the licence, and the list of brand names the licence is recorded against. A licence number that doesn't resolve is a hard fail; the brand doesn't get a rating, it gets a warning page.
For sister-site reviews this verification step is what tells us whether two casinos are actually related. Anyone can claim a brand is "part of a trusted group". The registry is what proves it. When we say Casino A and Casino B share an operator, it is because both brand names appear on the same licence held by the same legal entity, and we cite that licence on both pages. If we can't find documentary proof of the relationship, we describe the two sites as "independent alternatives" instead, even if they look identical.
2. Real withdrawal testing
The payout speed we publish next to a casino is the time we measured between a clean withdrawal request and funds landing in a real account. It is not the marketing claim from the cashier page and it is not an average from a third-party data feed. The desk deposits a modest amount, plays a normal session, requests a withdrawal using the most common method for that brand (typically a bank transfer for NZD accounts and a crypto wallet where supported), and times the process end to end.
We also note what happens after the request. If a brand triggers a fresh round of KYC checks after the first withdrawal — a passport re-upload, an unexpected source-of-funds questionnaire, a new utility bill — we say so on the page, because that is the friction a real player will hit. Across a sister-site network the post-withdrawal process is usually identical between brands, because the KYC desk and the compliance team are shared. When that's the case, we say it: a slow payout at one Northbridge brand is a fair predictor of a slow payout at the next.
3. Bonus terms in full
We read the wagering requirement, the maximum cashout, the game weighting, the maximum bet during wagering, the expiry window and the list of excluded countries before we describe an offer. If a welcome bonus headlines "100% up to $500" but carries a 60× wagering requirement on the bonus plus deposit, a $100 cashout cap and a seven-day expiry, those four facts go next to the headline, in the same font size. The casino's marketing department picked the headline; the casino's legal department picked the terms; we show both.
Sister-site networks deserve a particular note here. The marketing across two sister brands is usually written by separate teams and looks very different, but the underlying bonus terms are often drafted by the same compliance lawyer and are nearly identical. When that is the case, we say so — and when it isn't, we say that too. A network where one brand runs a fair 35× requirement and the sister brand runs a 70× requirement on a similar headline is a network where the player has to read carefully, and we'd rather flag the inconsistency than smooth it over.
4. Support and complaint history
The desk contacts support with a routine question — typically about withdrawal limits or document requirements — and times the response. We note whether the answer is on-script or substantive, whether the agent identifies themselves, and whether the same question put to the sister brand gets the same answer. Identical answers are a strong signal of a shared support desk, which in turn is a strong signal that any future complaint will be handled by the same team, regardless of which brand the player signed up with.
For complaint history we search at the operator level, not the brand level. A new brand launched last month will have no complaint history of its own, but its operator might have years of it sitting under three other names. We weight that operator-level history heavily. Repeated patterns — drawn-out KYC stalls, sudden mid-game term changes, withdrawal "reviews" that never resolve — drag the rating down across every brand in the network, because the operator is the one that decides how those situations end.
5. Mapping the network
The last step is the one most review sites skip. Once we've rated a casino, we plot it onto its operator network. We list every brand on the same licence, mark which ones currently accept New Zealand players, and link to the brand pages we've published. If two brands look similar but sit on different licences, they are shown as independent alternatives, not as sisters — that distinction matters because a self-exclusion you set on one will not carry across to the other.
A sister site is a corporate fact, not a vibe. Two casinos that look alike are not related; two casinos on the same licence are, regardless of how different the homepages look.
What we deliberately leave out
We don't score on game count. Modern casinos buy from the same handful of aggregators, so the headline "5,000+ games" number is almost identical across the market and tells the reader nothing useful. We don't score on graphics or animation. We don't score on how friendly the homepage is. And we don't accept operator-supplied metrics — uptime claims, average payout claims, "player satisfaction" claims — because we cannot verify them.
There is no version of this site where a brand can pay to appear higher than its methodology score warrants. Rankings are decided by the five inputs above and nothing else. If an operator wants a better position, the only route is a better licence record, a faster withdrawal, fairer terms, more responsive support and a cleaner complaint history.
How the rating is calculated
The five inputs above each contribute to a score out of five, rounded to one decimal. Licence and complaint history act as gates: a missing licence prevents a rating altogether, and a severe complaint pattern caps the maximum score at three. Within the rated band, withdrawal speed and bonus-term fairness are the two biggest movers, because they are the two things a player interacts with most directly. Support response is a tiebreaker rather than a primary driver — fast support cannot save a casino that pays out slowly.
We re-check the inputs on a rolling schedule. Licences and bonus terms are reviewed every quarter, withdrawal tests are repeated at least twice a year, and complaint history is monitored continuously through public forums and regulator notices. The "last reviewed" date on each casino page reflects the most recent full check, and every change to a score is logged with the date and the input that moved.
Corrections and challenges
If an operator believes we've described their licence, terms or relationships incorrectly, we want to hear about it through the contact page. We will correct factual errors on the page, dated. We will not remove accurate information because an operator objects to it. The same applies to readers: if you spot a brand that has changed hands, a sister-site relationship we've missed or a bonus term that has been updated, send it in.
The methodology itself is reviewed once a year. When we change it, we publish the change here and re-score the affected brands rather than quietly applying the new rules retroactively. The goal of this page is to make the scoring boring — predictable, documented and the same for everyone.