How to Compare White Label Casino Proposals Side by Side

To compare white label casino proposals, turn each one into the same four things. First, a year-one and a three-year cost at one GGR level you choose. Second, a list of what is included and what is extra. Third, an end-to-end timeline. Fourth, the licence and exit terms. Then score the proposals with weights that match your priorities. Our published weights are pricing 20%, time to launch 15%, revenue share 15%, game library 15%, licensing 15%, payments 10% and support 10%. The worked example below uses invented numbers. It is not a quote from any provider.

• Why proposals do not line up
• Step 1: pick one GGR level
• Step 2: put every cost on one footing
• Step 3: compare scope, timeline, licence and exit
• Step 4: score with weights
• Worked example with illustrative numbers
• What the example shows
• What to do next
• FAQ

Why proposals do not line up

Providers price in different shapes. In our platform data, SOFTSWISS lists a €35,000+ setup and a GGR share with payment setup billed separately. SoftGamings uses a flat monthly fee plus GGR share. GammaStack uses a fixed monthly fee with no GGR share, and you hold your own licence. Whitelabels.com lists $99 setup and 20% GGR, with games and payments included. Gambling Soft publishes packages from $7,500, paid in three equal stages, with the licence extra.

A 10% share and a 20% share cannot be compared until you know what each covers. Our all-in estimates at $250,000 of annual GGR run from $50,000 to $278,000 across twelve platforms. The cost guide at three GGR levels shows the method.

Step 1: pick one GGR level

Give every provider the same GGR path. Year-one GGR is usually the lowest, because your player base is still growing. A simple path is $250,000 in year one, $400,000 in year two and $600,000 in year three. If you have no forecast, use the $50,000, $250,000 and $750,000 levels from our cost guide. The goal is fairness between proposals, not a prediction.

Step 2: put every cost on one footing

Use this formula for year one:

Year-one cost = setup + custom development + licence + payment setup + (monthly minimum x 12) + GGR x (platform share + studio cut)

For three years, count the one-off costs once, the monthly minimum 36 times, and apply the same rates to three years of GGR.

Rules that keep it honest:

• convert every price to one currency at one rate on one date
• model a monthly minimum as added on top of the share unless the proposal says it is credited against it
• if a proposal does not state a studio cut, use the same placeholder for all of them, then replace it with the real quote. Our all-in method uses 15%, and $70,000 for a licence that is not confirmed
• add licence renewals if the licence has annual fees
• treat “not stated” as a question for the provider, never as zero

Our guide to GGR share and fee models explains why the same percentage can mean different bills.

Step 3: compare scope, timeline, licence and exit

Scope. List what is included, extra or not offered. Cover hosting, back office, CRM, affiliate tracking, KYC, payment integrations, game studios, branding, support and the licence. Give every extra a price.

Timeline. Compare the time from signed contract to the first real-money player, not the technical launch. Gambling Soft quotes seven business days, but that excludes licence approval and card payment onboarding. In our data, SOFTSWISS runs 8 to 14 weeks end to end, including the contract phase, and EveryMatrix 16 to 24 weeks. See our launch timeline comparison.

Licence cover. Check whether you run under a sublicence or hold your own, in which jurisdictions, and what happens if it is suspended. Our article on licence revocation risk explains why.

Exit. Turn the term into money: remaining minimum fees if you leave at month 12, plus any exit fee. SOFTSWISS says in its licensing FAQ that it must help transfer the player database. If GDPR applies and the platform is your processor, Article 28(3)(g) requires the contract to cover return or deletion of personal data. Our contract checklist lists the clauses.

Step 4: score with weights

Our ranking method scores seven criteria. Pricing is 20%. Time to launch, revenue share, game library and licensing are 15% each. Payments and support are 10% each. You can use the same weights for your own shortlist.

Score each proposal from 1 to 5 using your own evidence. For pricing, give the lowest three-year cost a 5 and scale the others. For revenue share, use the effective percentage of GGR and how clear the formula is. For licensing, judge cover for your target countries and the suspension terms. For payments, count methods that are live in your countries. For support, count what is written into the contract. Multiply each score by its weight and add them up.

Change the weights if your situation differs, but keep them at 100% and set them before you read the proposals. Otherwise you will tune them to favour the one you already like.

Worked example with illustrative numbers

These numbers are invented for the example. They are not quotes from any provider. Assume GGR of $250,000, $400,000 and $600,000 across three years.

Here is the cost at those GGR levels.

Now score each proposal from 1 to 5 and apply the weights.

What the example shows

Proposal B advertises 10%, but with the studio cut its running rate is 25%, on top of $54,000 of one-off costs. That is the headline trap from Step 2.

Proposal C has the lowest running rate at 14%. Its yearly cost matches A at $400,000 of GGR and falls below it at $600,000. But C carries $75,000 of one-offs and $24,000 a year in minimums. It needs about $2.37 million of cumulative GGR, counting three years of minimums, to repay them against A. So A is cheaper over three years. If you left C at month 12, the remaining 24 months of minimums would cost $48,000, unless the contract allows an exit.

The weights decide the winner. A first-time operator with no licence might raise licensing to 30%, and cut pricing and time to launch to 10% each. The scores become C 3.90, B 3.55 and A 3.50. The same facts give a different answer, which is why you set weights first.

What to do next

Send each provider our 20 questions, which come with a downloadable scoring sheet. Fill the gaps in your proposals with the answers, then rebuild the cost table.

For platform detail before you shortlist, see our review pages for SOFTSWISS and Whitelabels.com. Have a lawyer in your licence jurisdiction read the final contract. This guide is general information, not legal advice.

FAQ

What if a proposal does not state a game studio cut?

Ask in writing. Until you get an answer, use the same 15% placeholder for every proposal and mark the line as an estimate. Replace it with the quoted figure as soon as it arrives.

How many proposals should I compare?

Two or three. Shortlist with the all-in cost table first, then request full proposals from the best fits. More than three makes the scoring slow and the differences hard to see.

How do I handle different currencies?

Convert every price at one rate on one date. SOFTSWISS setup in our data is in euros, about $38,000 at our conversion, so a rate change moves the comparison. Re-run the model if the rate shifts before you sign.

Should I include licence renewal fees?

Yes, if the licence has annual fees. The worked example ignores them to stay simple. Add them as a yearly line for every proposal where you hold your own licence.

Can I use the scores to negotiate?

Yes. Take the weak lines of your preferred proposal, such as a monthly minimum or a long term, and ask for changes. Share nothing confidential from the other proposals, but you can say you are comparing.

External sources used: Gambling Soft’s public price list, the SOFTSWISS licensing and compliance FAQ and GDPR Article 28.