Gaming licenses: Which is more important - MGA, Curaçao or AGCO?
The choice of online casino is directly related to the license under which it operates. The safety, honesty of the game, the dispute resolution mechanism and the protection of the player's funds depend on it. In the industry, the most common licenses are MGA (Malta), Curaçao eGamingi AGCO (Canada, Ontario). Below is an objective comparison of these regulators.
1. MGA (Malta Gaming Authority)
Country: Malta (EU)
License type: B2C, B2B
Reputation: High
Pros:
Cons:
2. Curaçao eGaming
Country: Curaçao
License Type: Master/Sub-License
Reputation: Low/Medium
Pros:
Cons:
3. AGCO (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario)
Country: Canada (Ontario)
License type: B2C
Reputation: Reliable
Pros:
Cons:
4. Comparison table
Conclusion
If you value security, transparency and legal protection, MGA remains the best choice. It is suitable for players who do not want to risk money and prefer platforms with real responsibility.
Curaçao is an option for those who are ready for risks and are looking for a casino with a low entry threshold, unlimited bonuses and simple rules. But in case of problems, you should not count on help.
AGCO shows a high level of protection, but only works within Ontario, and is irrelevant for Australians.
Having a license does not guarantee the perfect operation of the casino, but its absence is a direct risk. Choose platforms with an MGA license or at least proven projects with Curaçao that have a good reputation.
1. MGA (Malta Gaming Authority)
Country: Malta (EU)
License type: B2C, B2B
Reputation: High
Pros:
- Strict requirements for the honesty of RNG and payments.
- Mandatory audit, financial guarantees.
- Player support and grievance system.
- Casinos are required to separate gaming and operating accounts.
Cons:
- Expensive and difficult to get, not all casinos can afford it.
- Does not work directly with Australian players, but often accepts them through international platforms.
2. Curaçao eGaming
Country: Curaçao
License Type: Master/Sub-License
Reputation: Low/Medium
Pros:
- Simple and cheap obtaining procedure.
- Fast registration and scalability.
- Legally work with Australian users.
Cons:
- Lack of control over the integrity of games.
- There are practically no real mechanisms for protecting the player.
- Complaints are often ignored.
- Most licenses are sub-licenses, with minimal oversight.
3. AGCO (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario)
Country: Canada (Ontario)
License type: B2C
Reputation: Reliable
Pros:
- The license is regulated at the state level.
- Casinos are required to comply with advertising, data protection and wagering requirements.
- Integrity control and mandatory audit.
- You can complain through the official Canadian authorities.
Cons:
- Works only with Ontarian players (regional nature).
- Does not accept international users, including from Australia.
- Limited prevalence.
4. Comparison table
| Criterion | MGA (Malta) | Curaçao | AGCO (Ontario) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trust Level | High | Low | High |
| Player Protection | Yes | No | Yes |
| Suitable for Australia | Partially | Yes | No |
| Licensing Control | Strict | Minimal | Strict |
| Opportunity to file a complaint | Yes | Practically no | Yes |
| Responsible Play Support | Yes | No | Yes |
Conclusion
If you value security, transparency and legal protection, MGA remains the best choice. It is suitable for players who do not want to risk money and prefer platforms with real responsibility.
Curaçao is an option for those who are ready for risks and are looking for a casino with a low entry threshold, unlimited bonuses and simple rules. But in case of problems, you should not count on help.
AGCO shows a high level of protection, but only works within Ontario, and is irrelevant for Australians.
Having a license does not guarantee the perfect operation of the casino, but its absence is a direct risk. Choose platforms with an MGA license or at least proven projects with Curaçao that have a good reputation.
