How 24Strong tests and ranks the casinos on this site — the exact protocol, the weighted criteria, and the conflicts disclosure.
Most Canadian online-casino review sites publish a ranking without ever showing how they arrived at the order. We do the opposite. The protocol below is the same one Daniel runs at every casino we cover, and the weighted criteria below are the actual scorecard we use. We update this page when we update the protocol, and the “last reviewed” date at the top reflects the current state.
If you spot a casino in our toplist whose performance contradicts what the protocol below would predict, that is the right place to flag a problem. The contact route for editorial corrections is on our About Us page.
Every casino that appears on 24Strong goes through this sequence before it ranks. Each step produces an objective output that feeds the weighted scorecard in the next section. Tests are repeated quarterly on every ranked casino — the recorded run-times below are aggregates from the most recent quarter.
We pull the operator’s licence number from the casino footer and verify it against the issuing regulator’s public register (Kahnawake Gaming Commission, Malta Gaming Authority, UK Gambling Commission, Curaçao Gaming Control Board, or AGCO / iGaming Ontario). If we can’t verify the licence directly, the casino doesn’t advance past Step 1.
We sign up with a fresh account, upload a government photo ID and a dated proof-of-address, and record how long full KYC verification takes. We note whether the casino permits withdrawals before full verification, and whether it accepts Canadian provincial photo IDs.
We deposit at three sizes — $20, $100, and $500 — from a Canadian e-Transfer account. We time from “Confirm” in the bank app to “Funds available” in the casino balance, and record any fees the casino doesn’t absorb.
We check whether the casino respects the player’s actual Interac e-Transfer limit (set by the player’s bank, typically $3,000–$10,000 daily) or silently caps it lower. Operators that override a player’s bank limit without disclosing the cap on the cashier page lose points.
We withdraw to three different Canadian bank accounts — RBC, TD Canada Trust, and Scotiabank — staggered across a Tuesday morning, a Friday night, and a Sunday afternoon, to capture banking-hour variance. Recorded times are from withdrawal request to funds-in-bank.
We read the full welcome-bonus terms and any ongoing-promotion T&Cs. We check wagering requirement, excluded-games list, contribution rates by game type, maximum-bet cap during wagering, maximum-win cap on bonus winnings, and (critically) whether Interac deposits qualify for the bonus.
We open three live-chat probes — one routine billing question, one mid-difficulty bonus-eligibility question, and one in Canadian French. We score on time-to-first-response, time-to-resolution, and accuracy.
We check whether the casino offers deposit limits, loss limits, session timers, reality checks, cool-off periods, and self-exclusion at sign-up — not just after a player asks. Operators that bury self-exclusion behind support tickets lose points; operators that surface it in the cashier and account-settings area gain them.
Each casino’s eight test outputs feed five weighted scoring categories. The weights below are calibrated to what Canadian Interac players actually care about — payment performance and security come first; game library and customer support, while important, sit lower in the weighting because they tend to be commoditised across the major operators.
| Category | Weight | What feeds it |
|---|---|---|
| Interac payment performance | 30% | Steps 3, 4, 5 — deposit speed, cap honesty, withdrawal speed sweep |
| Licensing & trust | 25% | Step 1 (licence verification) plus operator track record |
| Bonus fairness | 20% | Step 6 — wagering, exclusions, Interac eligibility |
| Game library & software | 15% | Catalogue depth, provider mix, RTP transparency, live-dealer studio mix |
| Support & responsible gambling | 10% | Steps 7 and 8 — chat response, French coverage, RG tooling |
Scores from each category are summed to a 100-point composite, which is mapped to the 1–10 rating displayed on each casino card. A casino must score at least 75/100 to make the toplist at all — the rest don’t appear.
Some bright-line failures get a casino bounced from the toplist entirely, regardless of how it scores elsewhere:
Online casino performance changes. Operators bring new payment processors online, change bonus structures, switch licensing jurisdictions, or quietly tighten withdrawal-approval policies. To catch this, we re-run the full eight-step protocol on every ranked casino on a quarterly cycle. Where a casino’s position changes by more than two spots, we update the homepage, refresh the “Updated” date, and add a short note to the review section explaining what shifted.
The next scheduled full sweep is August 2026. If we find a material problem between sweeps (e.g., a regulator suspends a licence we’d previously verified), we update immediately and out-of-cycle.
24Strong receives affiliate commission from the casinos we link to. The commission rate has no effect on rankings — see the About Us page for the full editorial-independence disclosure. Daniel does not hold equity in any operator reviewed on 24Strong, and he is not compensated by any operator outside of the standard affiliate channel.
If you’d like to dispute a score, point out an error, or suggest a casino we’ve missed, please email editorial[at]24strong.ca with the URL of the page or casino in question and a short summary of the issue. Daniel personally reviews every methodology-related email and responds within 48 hours on weekdays.
