Our own home page says that developers such as Pragmatic Play, BGaming, Hacksaw Gaming and Nolimit City offer a wide selection of slots. That sentence appears, in almost identical words, on hundreds of comparison sites. It is worth asking how many of the operators being compared actually name those four, and the answer turns out to be countable.
Of the 100 brands in the library, 33 publish a provider list that could be read. The other 67 publish none that renders as text, or publish one behind an interface that returns nothing. An empty field here means the list was not read, never that the operator has no suppliers.
One caveat applies to every number below: provider lists live on lobby and cashier pages, which are not clause-numbered. There is no contract reference to put beside these figures, and there will not be one.
How often do the four names on our home page actually appear?
Counting every spelling that names the same studio, across the 33 lists:
| Studio | Lists naming it, any spelling | Lists using the single most common spelling |
|---|---|---|
| Hacksaw Gaming | 32 | 25 |
| Pragmatic Play | 28 | 26 |
| Nolimit City | 25 | 14 |
| BGaming | 24 | 23 |
All four appear together in 20 of the 33 lists. Exactly one list contains none of them: CryptoLeo, whose list runs to 13 entries in total.
So the sentence is not wrong about the 33. It is silent about the other 67, which is two thirds of the library, and a claim that describes a third of a sample while sounding like it describes all of it is the kind of sentence this page exists to correct.
How long is a provider list, and how much does the length vary?
The 33 lists carry 1,997 entries between them. The shortest is Lucky Block with 12; the longest is Instant Casino with 150. The middle of the range sits at 47, which is Thrill.
| Brand | Entries |
|---|---|
| Instant Casino | 150 |
| Betriot | 140 |
| Bitcasino.io | 120 |
| Fairspin | 114 |
| Sportsbet.io | 110 |
| Thrill | 47 |
| DuckDice | 19 |
| BetPlays | 19 |
| CryptoLeo | 13 |
| Lucky Block | 12 |
Twelve against 150 is a ratio of one to twelve and a half between two sites that present themselves in the same terms. Part of that gap is a real difference in catalogue. Part of it is only how finely the operator chose to itemise: a site that lists a studio once and a site that lists the same studio\’s live-dealer arm as a separate entry finish with different totals without offering a single extra game.
Why 548 names are not 548 studios
Counted exactly as printed, the distinct names across the 33 lists number 548. That is the figure a comparison table would publish, and it is wrong.
Nobody normalises these lists, so one studio is written several ways by several operators. Nolimit City appears in four spellings — \”Nolimit City\” in 14 lists, \”NoLimit City\” in 6, \”NoLimit\” in 3 and \”No Limit City\” in 2 — which is one studio in 25 lists. Evolution appears as \”Evolution\” in 22 and \”Evolution Gaming\” in 5. Pragmatic Play appears in five forms, one of them run together as a single word. PG Soft appears with and without the space.
Merge case, spacing and punctuation and the 548 names become 498. Apply a stricter rule, one that also treats “Slotmill” and “Slotmill Games” as a single studio rather than two, and 457 remain.
The figure that moves furthest is the one that matters most. Names appearing in exactly one list fall from 264 to 220 under the first rule, and to 196 under the stricter one. Between a sixth and a quarter of the apparent \”unique\” suppliers in this data were never unique suppliers at all; they were a second spelling of a studio already counted.
Which studios are actually the common floor?
With the names merged, 28 studios appear in more than half of the 33 lists. That is the shared base almost every catalogue is built on, and it is the reason the same slot turns up on site after site with identical mathematics.
Alongside the four already listed, the ones appearing in over twenty lists include Endorphina, PG Soft, Evolution, NetEnt, GameArt, AvatarUX, Betsoft and Play\’n GO. Spribe appears in 19.
The long tail is the other half of the picture: 220 studios are named by a single operator each, or 196 if the stricter rule is applied. A list of 150 entries is therefore not 150 studios that 150 audiences would recognise. It is roughly two dozen names everyone carries, plus a hundred-odd that almost nobody else does.
What a provider list proves, and what it does not
It proves one thing: that on the day it was read, the operator was printing those names on its own page. That is a statement by the operator, on a page the operator controls — exactly the same class of evidence as the licence number in the footer, and it deserves exactly the same scepticism. The difference between a checkable field and an unchecked claim is the subject of our page on what crypto casinos do not publish.
It does not prove the agreement is current. Lists are edited rarely and studios come and go.
It does not prove the whole of that studio\’s catalogue is present, because supply agreements routinely cover part of a library rather than all of it.
It does not prove any of those games would load for any given visitor, because geographic filtering is applied by studio and by title and never appears in the list.
And a long list is not, by itself, a merit. It is a sign of a wide aggregated catalogue, and it says nothing about who holds the licence, which register confirms it, or at what point in the relationship the operator reserves the right to ask for documents.
What was not read
Sixty-seven lists out of a hundred. Those brands are absent from every count on this page, and their absence is not a judgement about them.
No certification body for any studio, and no return-to-player figure for any title. Neither field exists in the library, and no percentage is asserted anywhere on this site.
No record of which studios refuse which markets. That information exists somewhere; we do not have it, and filling the gap with a guess would be worse than leaving it open.
The library covers 100 brands and was read on 26 August 2026, with one entry re-read on 2 September 2026. Of the hundred, 38 were read from live pages, 41 from archived copies of the same pages, and 21 returned nothing at all.
One thing this page does not address, because it is a separate document with its own text: whether any of this may lawfully be played from India. It may not. Online money gaming is prohibited under the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which has been in force since 1 May 2026, and the position is set out on our page on what the text of the Act says. A studio\’s name in a lobby list settles nothing about that, in either direction.