How We Rate — Casea Casino NZ
| How the testing works | Updated: September 2026. Every score starts with a real account: our own money in, a bonus played through, verification completed, and a withdrawal timed to the minute. Nothing is scored from a press release or another review site. |
|---|
How the score is built
Each criterion is marked out of 10 against a written standard, then weighted. The overall figure is the weighted average, rounded to one decimal — there is no editorial nudge afterwards, and no commercial input at any stage; see Affiliate Disclosure.
A score below 5 on payments caps the overall figure at 6 regardless of everything else. A casino that pays late is not a good casino with one flaw; it is a casino with the flaw that matters most.
What each criterion covers
Payments — methods available in NZD, minimum and maximum limits, fees, and the measured time from withdrawal request to money received. See Deposits and withdrawals.
Bonus fairness — wagering multiplier, game weighting, maximum bet while wagering, expiry and the clauses that void a bonus. Read against the actual bonus terms.
Games — size and quality of the library, studios present, live dealer coverage, and whether NZ players can reach all of it. See the casino floor.
Support — four tickets minimum: a deposit problem, a bonus dispute, a verification question and an account closure request. Response time and whether the answer was correct both count.
Security and licensing — licence status, ownership, age verification, and the responsible-gambling tools actually present in the account area.
Each criterion is scored against a written standard rather than an impression, and the same standard is applied to every brand. Where something cannot be measured — a limit support will not confirm, a payout method we have not yet used — the criterion is marked as untested instead of being guessed at.
A worked example
A brand scores 9 on games, 8 on support, 7 on security, 6 on bonus fairness and 4 on payments. The weighted average is 6.6 — but the payments cap applies, so the published figure is 6.0, and the review says plainly why.
When the operator fixes the payout delay and a re-test confirms it, the cap lifts and the score moves. Scores on this site are dated for exactly that reason: they describe what was measured, not what is promised.
Re-tests use the same account where possible. A brand that has been reviewed twice therefore carries two dated measurements, and the review says which figure belongs to which visit.
The weights
| Criterion | Weight | What decides it |
| Payments | 30% | Measured payout time, limits, fees |
| Bonus fairness | 25% | Wagering, max bet, voiding clauses |
| Games | 20% | Library, studios, live tables |
| Support | 15% | Response time and answer quality |
| Security and licensing | 10% | Licence, verification, player tools |
The weights are fixed for every brand we review and are not adjusted per operator. Full re-test every six months, spot-checks quarterly, and an immediate update whenever a headline term changes — the cycle is set out in Our Standards.