What a white label casino costs

Two numbers. A one-off setup fee starting at $5,000, and a revenue share starting at 7% of GGR. There is no minimum contract term and no monthly platform fee on top.

The setup fee is paid once and covers getting your casino built and live: branding, platform configuration, payment integration and testing. The revenue share is ongoing and only applies to money the casino actually makes, which means the platform earns when you do rather than before you do.

Both numbers are floors, not fixed prices. What moves them is scope — how many markets you launch in, how many payment providers need integrating, how much of the interface departs from the standard. A quote comes out of the requirements call once those are settled.

Two things are not in either number: your gambling licence and your marketing. Those are covered further down, because a price page that omits them is not a price.

Everything needed to turn the platform into your casino and put it in production. Branding, configuration, the payment integrations your markets need, and testing of the player journeys and the admin panel.

There is no feature gating. The difference between a smaller and a larger setup fee is the amount of integration and customisation work, not which parts of the product you are allowed to use.

It is a percentage of GGR, starting at 7%. GGR — gross gaming revenue — is what players bet minus what they win. The share is taken on that figure before bonus costs, payment fees or marketing are deducted.

That definition matters more than the percentage, and it is the first thing worth checking in any offer you compare. Some vendors quote on NGR — net gaming revenue — which produces a lower-looking bill on the same traffic, but every contract defines *net* differently. One deducts bonuses, another also deducts payment processing, a third takes out affiliate payouts as well.

The practical consequence is that percentages quoted on different bases cannot be compared at all. A share of GGR is unambiguous: there is one definition, it is easy to audit against your own reporting, and you can model it before you launch instead of discovering it in the first invoice.

It also means the number is honest in the other direction. 7% of GGR is not the same as 7% of NGR, and we would rather state the harder-to-flatter basis than publish a percentage that only looks smaller.

Two things, and both are significant: your gambling licence and your marketing. Neither is bundled, neither is marked up, and neither is paid to us.

There is a reason to be blunt about this rather than quiet. An operator who budgets $5,000 and discovers a licence bill afterwards has been misled by omission, and the vendor who did it has lost the relationship on day one. Both of these are real costs, they are usually larger than the setup fee, and they belong in your plan before you sign anything.

What you will not find is a hidden third item. There is no monthly platform fee, no per-seat charge for admin users and no charge for the Telegram channel — the Mini App ships with the same launch as the web version.

No. There is no lock-in period, no minimum revenue commitment and no exit fee. If the project does not work, you are not paying for a platform you have stopped using.

This is deliberate, and it is worth asking every vendor you talk to about, because long minimum terms are the norm in this category. A twelve or twenty-four month commitment is common, and it is what makes a low headline percentage affordable for the vendor: they are not betting on your success, they are guaranteed the floor regardless.

The trade-off is that a revenue share with no minimum term only pays if the casino works. That alignment is the point. It also means the incentive to keep the platform running well sits in the right place — an operator who leaves costs us the revenue, not a cancellation penalty.

Scope, not negotiation. Three things account for nearly all of the variance: how many markets you launch in, how many payment providers have to be integrated, and how far the interface departs from the standard build.

Because the figure tracks work rather than willingness to pay, the lever you control is scope. Launching one market properly and adding the second once the first is earning costs less at the start than four at once, and it tells you something about which market deserves the next round of integration.

Phasing spreads the cost rather than avoiding it — a market added in month four is the same integration work it would have been in month one. What it buys is the ability to make that decision with real numbers from your own casino instead of a forecast.

Because a quote you cannot see cannot be compared. Withholding the number moves the conversation into a sales call, where it can be shaped to what the buyer seems able to pay rather than to what the work costs.

There are legitimate reasons for quoting per project — scope genuinely varies, and no vendor can publish one price that fits every launch. But that argues for publishing a floor and the structure, which is what this page does. It does not argue for publishing nothing.

The practical cost of the industry norm falls on the buyer. Comparing three vendors means three discovery calls before you learn whether any of them is in your range, and by then you have spent a fortnight and disclosed your budget to all three.

Ask four questions, in this order: what is the percentage calculated on, what is the minimum term, what is in the setup fee, and what is billed monthly regardless of revenue. The answers make otherwise incomparable offers comparable.

Pay attention to how the answers arrive as much as to what they are. A vendor who states the basis plainly and puts it in writing is a vendor whose invoices will not surprise you. One who keeps the conversation on the headline percentage, or answers the GGR question with another question, has told you how the relationship will go.

Get all four answers in the contract rather than on a call. Verbal terms and written terms diverge most often exactly where the money is — the definition of net revenue, what counts as an exit, and which integrations were in scope. A vendor who is comfortable putting a number on a public page will be comfortable putting it in a document.

For a worked example, the WW Games and Scalara comparison sets both published price lists side by side and runs them over a year at two revenue levels. Where a vendor publishes no price at all, the SoftSwiss comparison shows what can still be pieced together from what they do say.

About a week on the platform side. What usually sets the live date is your licence and your payment provider contracts, both of which run in parallel with the build and take longer than it does.

The platform sequence is short: brand configuration, payment integration for your markets, testing of the player journeys and the admin panel, then production. None of it waits on the others in a way that adds weeks.

The honest version of a launch date is therefore not a platform question. If your licence is in hand and your payment contracts are signed, a week is realistic. If neither is started, the platform will be ready long before you are able to use it, and a plan that pretends otherwise is one you will have to revise.