Which studios each BC.Game alternative actually carries

Live-dealer availability is the clearest signal. Live tables are streamed from a small number of studios with physical floors, so the presence of Evolution, Ezugi, Pragmatic Play Live or a similar name is what makes a live section possible at all. Twenty-two of the 24 lists we hold name Evolution or Evolution Gaming; eleven name Ezugi; six name Pragmatic Play Live separately from Pragmatic Play. A brand with none of those names in its list is not running live tables under its own steam.

Certification is the second signal. Third-party slots ship with a random number generator that has been tested by an independent laboratory, and that testing sits with the studio, not with the casino. When a brand carries Play'n GO, NetEnt, Nolimit City or Push Gaming, the mathematics of those games is the studio's published model, identical to the same title anywhere else. This is the point most misunderstood in this niche, and it is worked through in full on our page about return to player.

The third signal is originals. Several of these brands run in-house games — dice, crash, mines — that no studio supplies and no laboratory certifies in the same way. Seventeen of the 40 alternatives carry an originals tag in our library, and eighteen carry a provably-fair tag. Those in-house games are verified by a hash-and-seed scheme rather than by an RNG certificate, which is a different kind of assurance rather than a weaker one.

What a list of software providers does not tell you is how many games there are, which titles are available in your session, or whether a studio's full catalogue is present. A list is a set of names, not an inventory.

Sorted by the size of the published list. The studio count is the number of names in the operator's own list, counted as the operator writes them — so a brand that lists "Pragmatic Play" and "Pragmatic Play Live" separately scores two, and one that folds them together scores one. Treat the counts as an indication of catalogue breadth, not as a precise measure.

The notable studios column names studios that appear in that brand's list verbatim. It is a sample, not the whole list, and an empty-looking sample never means a studio is absent from the wider catalogue — only that it is not among the names we picked out.

Counting how many of the 24 lists name each studio produces a far more useful picture than any single brand's total. It shows what the common core of this market looks like — the studios you will meet whichever of these brands you open — and it shows which names are genuinely differentiating.

The counts below normalise for capitalisation and for the suffixes operators use inconsistently, so "Evolution" and "Evolution Gaming" are counted as one studio, as are "Hacksaw" and "Hacksaw Gaming". Without that normalisation the figures split in ways that reflect an operator's house style rather than its catalogue.

Two of the 24 lists stand apart. BitStarz publishes 62 studio names and neither Evolution nor Pragmatic Play is among them, though Hacksaw, BGaming, Playtech and Yggdrasil are. Thunderpick publishes 40 names with NetEnt, Hacksaw, PG Soft and Yggdrasil present but no live-dealer studio we recognise in the list at all. Neither observation means those brands lack live tables; it means their published list does not name a live studio, and a catalogue can be assembled through an aggregator whose own name appears instead of its suppliers'.

At the other end, the four largest lists — Bitcasino.io at 120 names, Fairspin at 114, Sportsbet.io at 110 and Flush at 85 — carry essentially the whole common core plus a long tail of small studios. If catalogue breadth is what you are comparing, those four are where the data is unambiguous. Whether breadth is worth anything to you depends on whether you play across studios or return to a handful of titles.

The smallest published list belongs to CryptoLeo at 13 names. That is a short list by the standards of this table, and it is also a published one, which puts it ahead of the 19 brands whose list we have not read at all.

Our library holds no provider list for BC.Game. It holds the operator's licence position — an Anjouan licence numbered ALSI-202410011-FI1, and a former Curaçao licence numbered OGL/2023/118/0060 that the Curaçao register returns as revoked — along with tags recording that the brand runs original games, live-dealer tables and a provably-fair scheme. Those tags are our own classification, not a studio list, and they cannot be turned into an overlap percentage.

That matters for how you use this page. A claim that some brand "carries 90 per cent of BC.Game's catalogue" requires both catalogues, and nobody publishing that figure has shown you either one. What you can do instead is take the common core from the table above — the studios named by eighteen or more of the 24 lists — and treat any brand carrying that core as offering a broadly familiar slot and live-table selection. For the in-house originals, no provider list helps at all, because in-house games have no provider.

If you want the ownership question rather than the catalogue question, that is a different comparison: BC.Game names two sister brands on its own licences page, and those are set out on our page about sister sites rather than here.