Which studios these nine catalogues actually name, and where they overlap

Nine do. Rocketpot is the exception among the ten carried in depth here — no studio list was found anywhere on its own site — and its record is otherwise one of the fuller ones, with a founding year, a verification figure at clause 11.4 and a published withdrawal ceiling at 11.5. A brand can be specific about money and silent about its shelf.

Rollbit itself names no studios in the one document read for it, its terms of service. This is therefore a comparison among the alternatives rather than a comparison against the subject, and it is presented as one. Where the subject publishes nothing there is nothing to be measured against, and inventing a Rollbit catalogue from a third-party page would be the exact failure this site exists to avoid.

The nine lists run from 120 names down to 13: Bitcasino.io 120, Sportsbet.io 110, Flush 85, Wild.io 80, Playbet.io and Empire.io 79 each, TrustDice 43, LTC Casino 42, CryptoLeo 13.

Sorting the 254 names by how many of the nine lists carry each one produces a curve that falls off a cliff. Two names are universal. Six more sit on eight lists, eleven on seven, nine on six. After that the numbers climb steeply in the other direction: fifty names appear on three lists, forty-eight on two, and a hundred and five on one list only.

Twenty-eight studios appear on six or more of the nine lists. That is the core — the set of suppliers you can expect to find behind almost any of these lobbies without checking — and it is the number behind the claim that a standard lobby here is a few dozen widely licensed studios wrapped in a long tail. Two hundred and three of the 254 names, four in every five, appear on three lists or fewer.

The two universals are Endorphina and Evolution, spelled identically by all nine. Below them the eight-list band is BGaming, GameArt, NetEnt, Pragmatic Play, Relax Gaming and Thunderkick — and in every one of those six cases the list that does not carry the name is the same list, CryptoLeo's.

Every figure above depends on a rule that has to be chosen rather than discovered: when are two printed names the same studio? Operators are not consistent, and the inconsistency is not rare. TrustDice prints Hacksaw where seven others print Hacksaw Gaming. Playbet.io prints NoLimit where seven others print Nolimit City. Sportsbet.io and Empire.io print Booming where five others print Booming Games.

Merge only case and punctuation and there are 254 names, with six studios in the eight-list band. Additionally treat those three short forms as the same studio as their long forms — which is what the comparison on the home page of this site does — and there are 251 names, with nine studios in the eight-list band, all nine missing from CryptoLeo alone. Neither count is wrong. The rule has to be stated, and a table that does not state its rule is not comparable with anything.

The same pattern runs down the tail, where it does more damage, because a short form printed by one operator becomes a studio unique to that operator. Playbet.io alone prints Iron Dog Studio while Flush prints Iron Dog; Playbet.io prints Bulletproof while Flush prints Bulletproof Games; Playbet.io prints Amatic while LTC Casino prints Amatic Industries; TrustDice prints Absolute Live while Playbet.io prints Absolute Live Gaming. Each of those pairs is currently two entries in the 254 and one row in nobody's catalogue.

Some pairs genuinely cannot be merged without a decision that is not ours to make. Bitcasino.io names EGT Digital and TrustDice names EGT; Playbet.io names CT Interactive and TrustDice names CT Gaming; Wild.io names both Pragmatic Play and Pragmatic Play Live. Whether those are one supplier or two is a question about corporate structure, and no corporate document was read for any of them, so they are counted separately and flagged instead of quietly resolved.

Set each list against the core of twenty-eight and a different ranking appears. Bitcasino.io carries all twenty-eight — the only list that does. Sportsbet.io carries twenty-seven, missing only Booming Games, and Empire.io twenty-six from a list of seventy-nine. At the bottom, CryptoLeo carries four of the twenty-eight.

The interesting column is the last one. TrustDice names forty-three studios and twenty-one of them are core, so nearly half its catalogue is the common shelf; LTC Casino's forty-two behaves almost identically. Flush names eighty-five and thirty-one of them appear on no other list in this set — more exclusive names than any other catalogue here, and more than a third of its own list. Empire.io is the opposite case: seventy-nine names, of which exactly two belong to it alone.

That is what a longer list buys. Going from forty-three studios to a hundred and twenty adds seven core studios and roughly seventy tail names, which matters enormously if the one game you want comes from a studio in that tail and not at all if it does not. It is a reason to check a specific supplier rather than a reason to prefer the bigger number.

Every band in the table above has the same footnote: the list that does not carry the name is CryptoLeo's. It is absent from all six names in the eight-list band, from ten of the eleven in the seven-list band, and from eight of the nine in the six-list band — twenty-four of the twenty-eight core studios in total. Thirteen names against a core of twenty-eight, and only four of the thirteen are core names.

That makes CryptoLeo the one catalogue here that is genuinely a different room rather than a smaller one. Two of its thirteen — Gold Coin Studios and Pear Fiction — appear on none of the other eight lists at all. A reader treating catalogue size as a single scale would put CryptoLeo at the bottom of it; the more accurate statement is that it is not on the same scale.

The counterpart at the other end is that size and difference are not the same measurement either. Empire.io's seventy-nine names contain two that nobody else lists, while Flush's eighty-five contain thirty-one. Those two catalogues are within six names of each other and are not remotely the same catalogue.

It is evidence of one thing: which suppliers a brand was willing to name on its own site on the day the page was read. That is worth having, because it is checkable and because it is the only part of a lobby a reader can inspect without an account.

It is not evidence that a given title from a named studio is available in a given country, that the studio still supplies the brand today, or that anything about the games is fair, tested or certified. It says nothing about payout, and it is deliberately weighted low in the way this list is ordered for exactly that reason: a catalogue is easy to publish and easy to inflate, whereas a licence number resolves in a register or it does not.

The fields that carry more weight are elsewhere on this site, and all of them sit together on the comparison of alternatives to Rollbit. What each brand commits to in writing about identity checks and maximum withdrawals is set out on the page about thresholds and ceilings, and every brand in the library, not only these ten, sits in the full register.

One last caution about the tail. A hundred and five of these names appear on one list, and a reader hunting a particular small studio is looking for exactly that kind of name — so the useful move is to search for the studio, not to compare the totals. On this evidence the totals mostly measure how thoroughly a brand wrote out its own supplier page.