Fifteen of the 27 casinos we review are run by just five companies. A shortlist of four brands can be one operator wearing four skins — same cashier, same verification queue, same support team, near-identical bonus terms behind different artwork. This page records who operates what, from the licence details each brand publishes.
Compiled 20 August 2026 from our own licence records. Free to cite or reuse with attribution to NewCasino.ai. Machine-readable copies: CSV and JSON.
The families
| Operating company | Brands we review | Count |
|---|---|---|
| Dama N.V. | SlotoZen, SlotLords, RollXO, WantedWin | 4 |
| Hollycorn N.V. | Jet4bet, Retrobet, Richard Casino, StayCasino | 4 |
| NewEra B.V. | DolfWin, SpinPlatinum | 2 |
| Alta Platform Gaming Limited Malta C108045 · MGA/B2C/1068/2024 |
ArcticBet, BetSolid, NordicAutomaten — and BetSmith, which we do not review | 3 of 4 |
| Whitebox B.V. Curaçao 155412 · OGL/2024/822/0338 |
IceCasino, V.Vegas | 2 |
| Stable Tech N.V. | HollyWin | 1 |
| Medium Rare N.V. | Stake | 1 |
The Alta group is the clearest case
One Malta Gaming Authority licence — MGA/B2C/1068/2024, held by Alta Platform Gaming Limited (Malta company C108045) — covers four brands: arcticbet.com, betsolid.com, nordicautomaten.com and betsmith.com. We review the first three.
This one is unusually well evidenced. The licence scope names the four domains, and the operator’s own affiliate programme lists exactly those four brands and no others — two independent sources agreeing. An MGA licence also means a stricter regime than Curaçao: real complaint escalation, mandated player-protection rules, and a regulator with an enforcement record.
The practical consequence is the usual one. If NordicAutomaten will not accept you, ArcticBet is the same licensee on the same platform, and BetSolid is too.
Single-brand operators in our coverage
These record one brand each in our data. Confirmed by our editor on 20 August 2026 and not yet checked against the regulator’s register — see the provenance note below.
| Operating company | Brand | Licence reference |
|---|---|---|
| GTW B.V. formerly Santeda International B.V. |
MyStake | OGL/2024/1798/1048 |
| Luckywayz Limited B.V. | Koko.bet | OGL/2024/1497/0884 |
| Twicedice B.V. | HitNSpin | OGL/2024/818/0448 |
| Wiraon B.V. | Verde Casino | OGL/2024/686/0183 |
| Nixxe B.V. | FieryPlay | — |
| Reelfun Gaming Limited | SweetReels | Tobique |
| Kings Media Ltd | King Billy | Tobique / Anjouan |
A shared affiliate programme is not a shared operator
This trips up most write-ups of casino groups, and the difference matters to you.
V.Partners is the affiliate programme behind several brands we review. Their recorded operating companies are not all the same: Verde Casino records Wiraon B.V. and HitNSpin records Twicedice B.V., while IceCasino and V.Vegas share Whitebox B.V. and the same licence number (OGL/2024/822/0338) — so those two genuinely are one operator.
Correction, 20 August 2026: an earlier version of this page treated all V.Partners brands as separate operating companies. IceCasino and V.Vegas are not separate; our own IceCasino licence record and an independent source give the same company and the same licence number.
- Commercial grouping and legal grouping are separate things. Brands can share marketing, a platform and an owner while sitting in distinct companies.
- It changes the practical consequences. Whether a restriction at one brand travels to another, and whether self-exclusion applies across them, depends on the operating entity and the operator’s own policy — not on who runs the affiliate programme.
- Do not assume either way. If you are relying on self-exclusion, ask the operator directly which brands it covers, and get the answer in writing.
Where brands genuinely share an operating company — the Dama and Hollycorn groups above — the case for treating them as one choice is much stronger.
What sharing an operator actually means for you
This is normal industry practice, not a scandal. Almost every large casino group runs several brands. It changes how you should compare them, not whether they are legitimate.
- Your choice is narrower than the list suggests. Sister brands typically share a cashier, a verification queue, a support team and much of the games catalogue. Moving to a sibling after a slow withdrawal usually reproduces the slow withdrawal.
- Restrictions travel. If an account is closed or limited at one brand in a family, opening one at a sibling frequently fails, and some operators treat it as circumvention.
- Bonus terms repeat. Comparing two sister offers is often comparing the same offer twice, with different artwork and a different headline number.
- Self-exclusion may not carry across. Unless the operator applies it group-wide, excluding yourself at one brand can leave the siblings open. If you are using self-exclusion, ask the operator directly whether it applies across all their brands, and do not assume.
- For genuine diversification, choose across operators rather than across brand names.
The 3 brands not in this file
These record a regulator and, in most cases, a licence reference — but no operating company. We are not guessing at ownership, so they are excluded from the family map rather than filled in:
Betsson, FS Casino, Vegadream.
Several publish a licence number that can be resolved to a company in the regulator’s own register. We will add them here as we verify each one, and we will say when we did it.
How to check ownership yourself
You do not need to take this page on trust, and you should not take any single source on trust for this.
- Find the licence number in the site footer. A regulator logo alone proves nothing — logos are copied freely. If there is no number, there is nothing to check.
- Look the number up in the regulator’s own register, not via a link the casino provides.
- Read the operating company name in the terms and conditions. It is usually in the first or last clause. A mismatch between this and the licensed company is the most common warning sign there is.
- Search that company name. Operators rarely hide their portfolios; sister brands normally appear quickly.
Our review method sets out how we record this, and the licence comparison covers what each regulator actually enforces.
Where this data comes from
We label provenance rather than presenting everything as equally solid, because the difference matters when you are deciding what to trust.
- 3 entries — the Alta group — are supported by the MGA licence scope and independently corroborated by the operator’s own affiliate programme. This is the best-evidenced grouping on the page.
- 13 entries come from operator-published licence details recorded in our own review data.
- 7 entries — the single-brand operators above — were confirmed by our editor on 20 August 2026 from secondary sources. They have not been checked against the regulator’s register. Two of the licence numbers independently match records we already held, which is corroboration but not verification.
- None of this is register-verified. When we complete register checks we will say so here, per brand, with the date.
We would rather publish a smaller, honestly-labelled file than a complete-looking one built on guesses. If that seems pedantic, it is the same standard we apply when we tell you a casino’s licence logo is not a licence.
Corrections
20 August 2026 — MyStake was first published here as Santeda International B.V. That was taken from external research; our own MyStake review already recorded that the brand moved from Santeda to GTW B.V., which is the better source and is now what this page says. The lesson is ours: check your own records before reaching for someone else’s.
If you operate one of these brands and our record is wrong, or a company has changed hands, tell us and we will correct it and date the change. We publish corrections rather than quietly editing.