Stake vs BitStarz
Pick BitStarz if you intend to take a deposit match: its own archived terms state 40x on the bonus alone, and that price can be checked before you commit anything. On a 100-unit bonus that is 4,000 in turnover and about 160 in expected cost at a 4 per cent house edge, so the bonus is worth less than nothing — a known bad price rather than an unknown one. Pick Stake if you intend to skip bonuses, because its archived policy sets a deposit-plus-bonus base and states no multiplier, so no honest clearing cost can be calculated from it. That asymmetry is the finding. On payout speed, game counts and licensing we hold no verified figures for either operator, and we will not invent them.
| On a £100 deposit, 100% match | Stake | BitStarz |
|---|---|---|
| ProvenPayouts Score | 8.2/10 (Strong) | 8.7/10 (Strong) |
| Wagering (from its own terms) | Not published | 40× |
| Applies to | Deposit + bonus | Bonus only |
| Break-even on that base | — | 25× |
| Turnover owed | — | £4,000 |
| Expected cost to clear | — | £160 |
| Realistic value | Cannot be priced | −£60 |
| Terms snapshot | 2026-01-05 | 2026-05-01 |
| Established | 2017 | 2014 |
Every figure above is computed from the operator's own archived terms and the model published at /bonus-break-even, at a 4% house edge. “Not published” and “not readable” are findings, not omissions — where an operator does not state a term, or serves it from a page an archive cannot read, that is said rather than filled in.
Stake
The biggest crypto casino — instant payouts, deep library. Editorial assessment, not first-hand tested.
BitStarz
The proven incumbent — reliable, if you accept the admin fee. Editorial assessment, not first-hand tested.
Which of the two bonuses can actually be priced?
Only one. BitStarz's bonus terms, read from the operator's own pages through the Internet Archive and checked word for word, apply 40x to the bonus alone. A multiplier plus a base is all you need to price an offer. Using the model published at break-even table, break-even on a bonus-only base is 1/h. At a 4 per cent house edge — the edge on the 96 per cent RTP slots that bonus terms typically steer you towards — break-even is 25x. BitStarz asks 40x, which is 1.6 times over. Work it through on a 100-unit deposit with a 100-unit bonus. Required turnover is 40 x 100 = 4,000. Expected cost is 4,000 x 0.04 = 160. Realistic value is 100 - 160 = -60. The clearing cost is 60 per cent more than the bonus is nominally worth, so on the published terms the offer is negative before a single spin. It would only break even at a house edge of 2.5 per cent or lower, because 1/40 = 0.025, and we hold no verified data on where the eligible games actually sit. That is the whole honest case on BitStarz's bonus: checkable, and poor.
Why Stake's offer cannot be priced, and why that is not the same as being worse
Stake's archived policy does something unusual: it names the base and stops. The sum of deposit and bonus is what must be turned over, and no multiplier is stated anywhere in the text we could read. The same policy discusses normalising contribution by house edge, which means the same nominal stake can count differently from game to game — a further reason no single number would describe the cost even if one were published. Reading a wagering multiple out of that would be inventing a figure, so we do not. This is worth separating from a different failure we have documented elsewhere. Gamdom and Rollbit serve their terms from client-rendered shells, so the archive holds page furniture and no readable text at all; their terms are simply unread. Stake's page is readable and carries no multiplier. An unpriceable offer is not automatically a bad one. It is an offer that cannot be recommended on value, because value is arithmetic and the arithmetic has a hole in it. If Stake's terms matter to your decision, read them on the operator's own site before you deposit, not here and not on an aggregator.
Why the base matters far more than the multiplier
The number most comparisons lead with is the least informative half of the term. The base sets the turnover, and the turnover sets the cost. Six operators' terms have been checked verbatim against their own archived pages, and lining them up on the same 100-unit deposit with a 100 per cent match makes the point. BitStarz at 40x on the bonus alone: 40 x 100 = 4,000 turnover, 160 expected cost, 1.6 times over the 25x bonus-only break-even. mBit is identical at 40x bonus-only. Vavada asks 35x on the bonus alone: 3,500 turnover, 140 cost, 1.4 times over — the cheapest of the six on this basis. Now the deposit-plus-bonus side, where break-even at a 100 per cent match is m/(h(1+m)) = 12.5x. 7Bit and Mirax ask 35x on deposit plus bonus: 35 x 200 = 7,000 turnover, 280 cost, 2.8 times over. KatsuBet asks 45x on the same base: 9,000 turnover, 360 cost, 3.6 times over. So a 35x can cost 75 per cent more than a 40x. Read the base before you read the number, every time.
What is unknown about both operators, and why this page says so
ProvenPayouts does not deposit, does not time withdrawals and publishes no test logs. What we hold on this pair is the archive-verified bonus terms above and nothing further that survives checking, so this page carries no withdrawal times, no fee or minimum figures, no game counts, no provider lists, no licence numbers and no complaint statistics for either operator. Plenty of sites publish all of those. Some of the figures they publish contradict each other, and none of them is something we have confirmed against a primary source. Treating that gap as a finding rather than filling it is the point of the site. Three things follow practically. Check payout limits and any clause about how very large wins are paid in the operator's own terms, because that clause matters most exactly when it matters at all. Check what licence each site holds and what complaints route it names, on the licence register rather than on the casino's own footer. Check the product range yourself if a sportsbook, live tables or a particular studio decides your choice. The bonus arithmetic is the part we can stand behind; the rest is yours to verify.
How to price the offer against your own deposit
The model is published in full at break-even table and takes two inputs: the multiplier and the base it applies to. Required turnover is W x B when the multiplier applies to the bonus alone, and W x (D + B) when it applies to deposit plus bonus. Expected cost is turnover x house edge. Realistic value is the bonus minus that cost. Break-even is 1/h on a bonus-only base — 25x at a 4 per cent edge — and m/(h(1+m)) on a deposit-plus-bonus base, which at a 100 per cent match is 12.5x. Anything above those thresholds is negative expected value on the terms as published, and no bonus turns a house edge positive. Two things silently change the answer and are worth reading before you accept an offer: which games contribute what percentage of your stake towards the requirement, since a low contribution multiplies the effective requirement, and how long you have to complete it. Both are set in each operator's own terms, and neither is something we publish figures for on this pair. Run your own numbers at bonus calculator, and read the mechanics at What 35x wagering means and what it costs you.
Who each one suits, on the evidence that exists
Take BitStarz if you want a bonus whose price you can see before accepting it. 40x on the bonus alone is honest arithmetic and a poor deal — 1.6 times over break-even, minus 60 on a 100-unit bonus at a 4 per cent edge — but a poor deal you can measure beats an offer you cannot. If you do accept it, read the contribution table and the completion window in BitStarz's own terms first, because both can make the effective requirement considerably worse than 40x looks. Take Stake if you intend to decline bonuses altogether, in which case the unpriceable welcome offer stops mattering and the decision moves entirely onto ground this page does not cover: product range, licensing, and how each operator handles verification and payouts. On that ground we hold no verified figures for either, and no comparison worth reading can be built out of guesses. Our editorial score exists for both operators, and it is a judgement formed from public records — never a measurement, never the output of a test. The method and its limits are set out at how we rank.
It turns on one question: are you taking a bonus? If yes, BitStarz is the only side of this pair that can be priced, and the honest price is poor — 40x on the bonus alone against a 25x break-even at a 4 per cent house edge, minus 60 on a 100-unit bonus. If no, the bonus question disappears and the decision moves onto product, licensing and payout handling, where we hold no verified figures for either operator and will not invent them. Neither wins outright. The asymmetry itself is the finding: one operator's terms survive checking, the other's do not.
FAQ
Which welcome bonus is better value, Stake's or BitStarz's?
BitStarz's, on the narrow ground that it can be checked. Its own archived terms state 40x applied to the bonus alone, so a 100-unit bonus needs 4,000 in turnover and costs about 160 at a 4 per cent house edge, against a bonus-only break-even of 25x. That is a known bad price. Stake's archived policy sets a deposit-plus-bonus base and states no multiplier at all, so no clearing cost can be calculated from it. An offer that cannot be priced is not automatically worse, but it cannot be recommended on value.
Is 40x at BitStarz worse than 35x somewhere else?
Usually not, because the base decides the cost. BitStarz's 40x applies to the bonus alone: on a 100-unit deposit with a 100 per cent match that is 40 x 100 = 4,000 in turnover, costing about 160 at a 4 per cent house edge. A 35x on deposit plus bonus, the structure 7Bit and Mirax both publish, is 35 x 200 = 7,000 on the same deposit and about 280 in cost — 75 per cent more turnover from the smaller-looking number. Read the base before the multiplier. The model and worked examples are at break-even table.
Why can't you tell me Stake's wagering requirement?
Because Stake does not publish one. Its policy page, read through the Internet Archive, defines the base as deposit plus bonus and states no multiplier anywhere in the readable text, while also discussing normalising contribution by house edge so that the same stake counts differently across games. Quoting a multiple would mean taking a number from a secondary site and presenting it as the operator's own, which is exactly the practice this site exists to avoid. If the offer matters to your decision, read the terms on Stake's own site before depositing.
Which one pays out faster?
We do not publish an answer. ProvenPayouts does not deposit, does not time withdrawals and keeps no test logs, and our verified record on this pair covers published bonus terms only — no withdrawal times, no fees, no minimums, no maximums for either operator. Plenty of sites quote figures; we have not confirmed any of them against a primary source, so repeating them here would be borrowing someone else's confidence. Check each operator's own payout terms, and pay particular attention to any clause covering how very large wins are paid out.
Which is safer if a payout goes wrong?
This page does not answer that, because we hold no verified licensing or complaint data for either operator. What can be said generally is that a licence establishes a registered company and a complaints route, not a mechanism for ordering that you personally be paid, and that any independent arbitration or dispute-resolution route named by an operator is worth more than the licence alone. Check both on the licence register and the arbitrator's own site rather than on a casino footer or an affiliate page, including this one.
Is the ProvenPayouts Score a test result?
No. It is an editorial judgement assembled from public data: published terms, licence records and openly available complaint databases. We do not deposit, do not time withdrawals and publish no test logs, so no score on this site is a measurement of anything, and none should be read as one. Scores move when the underlying public record moves, and the gap between two operators is often far too small to decide a choice on. The weighting and its limits are set out in full at how we rank.
Other matchups with these two
BitStarz vs 7Bit Casino
BitStarz wagers 40x on the bonus alone, 7Bit 35x on deposit plus bonus. At a 100 per cent match the lower number costs about 1.75x more to clear.
Vavada vs BitStarz
Both wager on the bonus alone — Vavada 35x, BitStarz 40x — so Vavada's bonus runs about $20 cheaper per $100. Its 2021-archived 10x cashout cap is the catch.
BitStarz vs mBit
Both require 40x wagering on the bonus alone, verified from archived terms, so the two offers cost the same to clear. Beyond that, we verify nothing.
Stake vs Rollbit
Stake publishes a bonus base but no readable multiplier; Rollbit's terms defeat the archive. Neither bonus can be priced, so choose on product and recourse.
18+ only. Editorial comparison from public data and archived operator terms — not a first-hand withdrawal test. ProvenPayouts may earn commission on sign-ups; it never changes a score or an ordering, and operators we cannot monetise stay in the ranking anyway.