A record of what can be tried, kept by a site that sells nothing playable
We keep one record, in public, and it is a narrow one: for every online casino on the list, whether its games can be opened in "free play" before any money is involved, and on what condition that is allowed. The narrowness is the whole design (one subject, four questions, no verdict), because a narrow claim is one a reader can go and test while a broad one has to be swallowed whole.
Each brand is therefore described by four boxes instead of a paragraph of praise: whether a "demo" of any game exists at all (some lobbies call the same thing "fun mode"), whether that trial starts for somebody holding no account ("no sign-up", in the column heading), whether anything is credited without money going in ("no deposit", as the table has it), and whether a tournament takes entries at no charge (a "freeroll"). Every box also carries the level at which we could establish its answer.
Not one game on these pages is playable, and that is a decision taken for us by the British regulator rather than a gap in the product. The code of practice binding a Gambling Commission licensee obliges it to establish the age of a customer before that customer may reach the free versions of its gambling games, and a companion provision makes it answerable "for the actions of third parties" with which it holds a contract, affiliates included (provision 3.2.11, in force since May 2019, and provision 1.1.2 beside it).
A site in our position has two options, and only one of them leaves the operators it writes about inside their licences. These pages say where a trial exists, on whose software, and under which condition; the reader who means to open one has to go to the operator itself, since only a licensee may decide whether he is allowed to.
Who writes these pages, and out of what material
The pages are written by one editorial team working from documents rather than from play: help pages and terms published by the operators, technical notes published by the platform suppliers, the public registers of the gambling authorities, and the text of the law itself. The identity of the publisher sits on the privacy page, where the law requires it to be, and the address for corrections is on the contact page.
Where a rule decides a line, we read it in the language it was written in, because a translated digest of a statute is a secondary source wearing a primary source's clothes. That meant a German treaty with its own word for a gaming account ("Spielkonto"), a Spanish royal decree with its own term for free games ("aplicaciones de juego gratuito"), a Swedish act (the Spellagen, as amended in 2025) and a Canadian regulator's "Registrar's Standards".
Nobody on our team opened an account anywhere for this record, and the omission is deliberate rather than idle. An account would have shown one "lobby" from the inside, and it would have left a reader holding a claim he had no way of repeating from his own browser.
How the money works, said here and not at the foot of the page
A commercial link here pays the site, and it is flagged in the markup as a paid link rather than passed off as an editorial one ("sponsored", with the attributes that belong beside it). Where a reader follows one and opens an account at the far end of it, a commission may reach us, and it costs that reader not a penny more than walking in through the front door.
What a commission cannot reach is the content of the four boxes, and the reason is structural rather than a question of anybody's good character. Whether a lobby will open a title in "demo mode" for somebody holding no account is a question about a web page and nothing else, and a browser answers it in under a minute without any help from us or from you; a verdict on a casino cannot be settled that way, which is precisely why we publish no verdicts.
The commercial relationship does decide one thing, and it is better said plainly than discovered later. The brands examined here are the brands for which such a relationship exists, so this is a record of the casinos whose free play could be read from the outside and not a survey of an industry that counts its sites in the thousands.
Why the list looks the way it does
The record holds 104 brands running on twelve platforms, and the second figure is the one that does the work, because the condition attached to a trial belongs to the "platform" underneath the brand and is inherited by every site that licenses it. Most of those brands appear in the full list as their international edition; a Spanish or Canadian provincial version of the same name belongs to the page written for its own market, since such a site will not accept a player arriving from anywhere else.
No order on this site is a ranking of quality, and the arithmetic behind it is printed rather than implied. The sequence is produced from the four boxes by a fixed weighting (an open demo and an open "lobby" count three, an offer and a tournament two, an unverified entry less than a plain yes), so a brand nobody would call the best in the world can stand at the head of a list here.
A register kept by an authority is always longer than this list. Where a market page carries one it carries the address of the register instead of a copy, because a copy is wrong on the day the register changes, and it costs us nothing to point a reader at a live document that names the casinos paying this site nothing (the British register alone held 78 holders at the reading of 10 October 2026).
What this site does not publish
There are no scores here, no stars, no grades and no "tested" badge on anything (no medals, no seals, no certificates either). We played none of the games, nobody timed a withdrawal, and a page claiming either of those things would be inventing the one part of its work that a reader has no way of checking.
Offer figures are never typed in by hand. Where a "no deposit" entry appears it is assembled from the verified fields for that brand, and where the standards of a province forbid naming an incentive at all (Ontario and Alberta, in the regulators' own wording), the page names none and explains the silence instead.
Where a box reads "not verified", the refusals, the blocked requests and the counts behind it are set out on our method page. Something close to a quarter of this work consists of things that could not be established, and that quarter is published as well!
What would make this page wrong
A statute is amended, a brand migrates to different software, a lobby is rebuilt in a weekend, and a domain that served a casino last year serves a furniture business today. Every one of those has happened inside the material behind this site, and the last of them happened to a live-casino studio whose old address now advertises fitted kitchens.
So every line here is true as at the date of its reading, and that date is printed with it ("last read", on the row itself). The honest shape of a site on this subject is a dated document rather than a standing claim; nothing in these pages is meant to outlive its sources.
If a box no longer matches what the operator's own page says, the quickest way to improve this site is to send us the address you read, with the date of your reading on it. A row can be corrected, its level can be moved, or the claim can come out altogether. Nothing here is too settled to be put right!