Two operators, two archived contracts, and the figures that differ

Two documents, read the same way

Neither of these contracts was read live. Gamdom’s came from an archived copy of the operator’s own text dated 9 August 2026, and CoinCasino’s from an archived copy opened on 26 August 2026. Setting the two beside each other is therefore a fair exercise in one specific sense: the same kind of evidence sits behind both columns, and both carry a date.

That symmetry is worth stating plainly, because comparisons of this sort usually mix a paragraph copied from one operator’s marketing with a clause number lifted from another’s terms and present the result as a level contest. Where a figure below has a clause number attached, it was printed in a numbered clause. Where it has not, it came from somewhere weaker, and the page says so.

Thirty-six against thirty-seven

The closest thing to a tie in this whole comparison is the territorial list. CoinCasino’s terms name 36 places whose residents are refused; Gamdom’s edition in force names 37 at clause 3.4. A single place between them.

The similarity is more interesting than the difference. Both operators also bar, in the same breath, anyone resident in a jurisdiction where online gambling is restricted or prohibited — an open category that is wider than either list and cannot be turned into one. So the printed counts are floors rather than totals, and two operators arriving within one entry of each other says something about how these lists are assembled rather than about either company’s appetite for risk.

One difference does not appear in the counts at all. Gamdom’s list has moved, and we can date the movement: an archived copy from 24 April 2025 named 24 territories, and thirteen were added by the later capture with nothing removed. We hold no earlier CoinCasino copy, so we cannot say whether its 36 have been stable or have grown the same way. That is an absence of reading on our side, not a finding of stability on theirs. The full sequence for the operator we did read twice is set out in the territories page.

One prints a ceiling, the other declines to

Here the two contracts diverge sharply, and this is the figure most worth carrying away.

CoinCasino’s clause 9.6 sets a maximum withdrawal of €500,000 per month. It is a large number, and for almost every reader it is irrelevant in practice — but it exists, it is public, and it can be held up against the operator later.

Gamdom’s terms take the opposite approach. Clause 5 states that no fixed maximum monthly withdrawal limit is imposed, and in the same breath reserves the right to process large withdrawals in structured instalments for operational, security or compliance reasons, with the schedule communicated at the time. No threshold is attached to that right. Clause 5.2 adds that the minimum and maximum limits are displayed inside the account, which puts them beyond a reader who has not registered.

Two ways of describing a payout limit: one number a reader can plan against, and one discretion with no figure on it. Neither is misconduct, and they are not the same promise. A third contract sets its own monthly figure far lower and prints a verification threshold beside it, which is read out clause by clause in the Rocketpot comparison. The rest of that section is unpicked in the payout rules.

The condition that sits on every deposit

Gamdom’s clause 4.1 has no counterpart in anything we read of CoinCasino, and it is the single most consequential sentence in the document. Every deposit must be wagered at least once before a withdrawal is requested. The clause says this applies to all deposits, including sports bets, and not only to those tied to a promotion, and that a request made before the deposit has been wagered in full may be delayed or denied.

That is a bonus-style condition applied to ordinary money. A reader who deposits and changes their mind an hour later is not in the position they might assume.

We did not find an equivalent term in the CoinCasino copy. That sentence means what it says and nothing more: the term is not in our record. Absence in this record is unread, never permitted, and the same rule governs every blank cell on this site, as the reading rules set out.

Sixty-three studios against sixty-seven

The supplier counts look comparable and are not. Sixty-three is recorded for CoinCasino from its own reading. Sixty-seven for Gamdom comes from studio names embedded inside archived game addresses on the operator’s domain, each of which answered with a page on a dated capture — a narrower claim than a lobby listing, and one with a weight attached to each name, from 779 addresses for the largest down to two for the smallest. How that count was built, and what it cannot show, is set out on the suppliers page.

Comparing a number derived that way with a number gathered another way would be comparing two instruments, not two lobbies. The honest use of each is internal to its own row, which is why this site prints the method beside the figure rather than a league table. All twelve rows sit together on the front page.