How Soft2Bet Is Revolutionizing iGaming with Smart Growth and Innovation

When BetVictor decided to migrate from its legacy proprietary platform to a third-party provider solution in 2018, the 80-year-old gambling brand faced a critical decision affecting everything from time-to-market for new features to regulatory compliance costs to player retention. After evaluating six major platform providers, BetVictor selected Kambi for sportsbook technology and developed its own casino management system, recognizing that no single provider excelled at both verticals. The migration took 18 months and cost approximately £8 million but delivered 40% faster feature deployment, reduced operational costs by 22%, and enabled market entry in four new jurisdictions within two years outcomes that wouldn’t have been achievable with their legacy system but required careful provider evaluation matching technical capabilities to business objectives.

This example illustrates that iGaming platform selection isn’t about choosing “the best” provider but rather identifying which provider’s technical architecture, cost structure, regulatory support, game content aggregation, and operational model aligns with your specific business strategy, target markets, and growth timeline. The platform provider landscape includes dozens of companies with dramatically different offerings from comprehensive turnkey solutions launching operators in 90 days to modular platforms requiring significant customization, from revenue-share models requiring zero upfront investment to licensed platforms costing €500,000+ annually in fixed fees.

Understanding how to evaluate platform providers requires examining what these companies actually provide, the major players and their positioning, cost structures and their implications, technical capabilities that differentiate providers, regulatory compliance support, and the decision framework determining when platform providers make sense versus in-house development or hybrid approaches.

What Platform Providers Actually Do

Before comparing providers, understanding the comprehensive scope of services helps clarify what you’re evaluating. Full-service iGaming platform providers offer integrated technology ecosystems managing virtually every aspect of online gambling operations.

Core platform components:

Player Account Management (PAM): Central system managing player registration, authentication, account balances, bonuses, loyalty programs, responsible gambling tools, and KYC/AML verification. This forms the operational core where all other systems integrate.

Game aggregation: Single integration accessing 50-100+ game providers and 5,000-15,000+ games across slots, table games, live dealer, and virtual sports. Providers negotiate commercial terms with game studios, manage technical integrations, and ensure game certification across jurisdictions work individual operators couldn’t efficiently replicate.

Sportsbook platform: Odds feed, risk management, bet settlement, trading tools, and front-end design for sports betting. This requires specialized expertise and real-time data infrastructure that most casino operators lack in-house.

Payment processing: Integration with 50-200+ payment methods including credit cards, e-wallets, bank transfers, and cryptocurrency, with fraud detection, currency conversion, and regional payment preferences managed by the platform.

Bonus and promotional engines: Configurable tools creating and managing welcome bonuses, free spins, cashback, tournaments, and gamification features without requiring developer resources for each promotion.

Business intelligence and reporting: Real-time dashboards, player segmentation, marketing analytics, game performance metrics, and financial reporting enabling data-driven decision making.

Regulatory compliance tools: Responsible gambling features (deposit limits, self-exclusion, reality checks), reporting to regulators, age verification, geolocation, and jurisdiction-specific requirements varying by market.

CRM and marketing automation: Player communication tools including email, SMS, push notifications, and personalized offers based on behavior and value.

Back-office management: Administrative tools for customer support, payment processing, bonus approval, player management, and operational oversight.

The comprehensive nature of these systems explains why platform providers exist building equivalent infrastructure requires 50-150 developers over 18-36 months costing €5-15 million before launching a single customer, while platforms provide immediate access for setup fees of €50,000-€500,000 plus ongoing revenue share or licensing fees.

Major Platform Providers: Positioning and Strengths

The platform provider market includes established multi-vertical platforms, specialized sportsbook providers, casino-focused solutions, and emerging modular platforms. Understanding each provider’s positioning helps narrow evaluation.

EveryMatrix (comprehensive platform):

Positioning: Full-service B2B provider with casino, sportsbook, and platform services. Known for modular architecture allowing operators to select specific components.

Strengths: 20+ regulatory licenses enabling operation in most major markets, deep game aggregation with 200+ providers and 15,000+ games, strong compliance tools, flexible commercial models.

Appropriate for: Mid-size operators wanting comprehensive solutions with customization options, multi-market strategies requiring diverse licensing, casino-focused operations.

Cost structure: Hybrid models including revenue share (15-25% of NGR) or licensing fees (€30,000-€100,000 monthly) depending on operator scale and selected modules.

Kambi (sportsbook specialist):

Positioning: Pure-play sportsbook technology provider powering major operators including DraftKings, Penn Entertainment, and Kindred Group.

Strengths: Best-in-class sports betting technology with advanced trading tools, 200+ sports and 100,000+ events monthly, rapid odds compilation, sophisticated risk management, and proven scalability handling millions of bets.

Appropriate for: Operators prioritizing sportsbook over casino, large-scale operations requiring institutional-grade betting infrastructure, brands wanting to compete at highest technical levels.

Cost structure: Primarily revenue share 8-12% of sportsbook NGR, with minimum guarantees for larger clients. Setup fees €200,000-€500,000.

Aspire Global (turnkey solution):

Positioning: Complete turnkey B2B and B2C operator with emphasis on quick market entry and operational support.

Strengths: Fastest time-to-market (60-90 days), comprehensive operational support including customer service, payment processing, and marketing, licenses in 10+ jurisdictions, proven track record with 50+ brands.

Appropriate for: New operators lacking operational expertise, small-to-mid-size brands wanting minimal internal staff, quick market entry prioritization.

Cost structure: Revenue share 25-35% of NGR covering comprehensive operational support, or lower revenue share (18-25%) with operators handling more functions internally.

Playtech (enterprise platform):

Positioning: One of the largest gaming technology providers serving major regulated operators globally with focus on enterprise clients.

Strengths: Comprehensive product suite including proprietary casino content, sports betting, bingo, poker, and platform services, relationships with tier-1 operators, regulatory strength in major markets.

Appropriate for: Large-scale operators with substantial budgets, publicly traded companies requiring enterprise-grade systems, brands wanting proprietary game content integrated.

Cost structure: Negotiated licensing fees typically €50,000-€300,000 monthly depending on scale, plus revenue share components on certain products. Enterprise pricing with minimum commitments.

SBTech (now DraftKings technology):

Positioning: Sportsbook and casino platform acquired by DraftKings in 2020, with limited availability to third-party operators post-acquisition.

Strengths: Strong North American sports betting focus, proven scalability in regulated US markets, comprehensive risk management.

Current status: Primarily serves DraftKings’ own operations with limited third-party licensing, making it less accessible to most operators.

Soft2Bet insights (modular platform):

Positioning: Mid-market platform provider emphasizing fast deployment and multi-brand management.

Strengths: Modular architecture, support for multiple gaming verticals, emphasis on localization and personalization, competitive pricing for emerging operators.

Appropriate for: Mid-size operators managing multiple brands, markets requiring strong localization, cost-conscious operations balancing features and budget.

Cost structure: Revenue share 18-28% of NGR or hybrid models combining lower revenue share with monthly platform fees.

Cost Structures: Understanding Total Economics

Platform provider pricing varies dramatically based on services included, operator scale, and commercial model. Understanding total cost of ownership beyond headline revenue share percentages matters enormously.

Pure revenue share model:

Structure: Provider receives percentage of Net Gaming Revenue (player losses minus bonuses, typically 20-35%) with no or minimal upfront fees.

Advantages: Zero or low capital requirement enabling operators to launch without financing, provider incentivized to optimize platform performance since they only earn when operator succeeds, scalable costs growing only as revenue grows.

Disadvantages: Higher lifetime costs if operation succeeds paying 30% of NGR perpetually becomes extremely expensive as scale increases, less negotiating leverage once integrated and dependent on platform, provider prioritizes high-volume operators over smaller clients.

Appropriate for: New operators testing market viability, undercapitalized businesses unable to fund upfront platform costs, operators in uncertain markets where risk minimization matters more than long-term cost optimization.

Fixed licensing fee model:

Structure: Monthly or annual platform fees (€30,000-€300,000 monthly depending on scale and features) regardless of revenue generated.

Advantages: Lower lifetime costs for successful operations, predictable budgeting, no revenue sharing reducing conflicts of interest, better negotiating position since revenue isn’t tied to single provider.

Disadvantages: High fixed costs regardless of business performance, substantial capital requirement before launch, risk of overpaying if business underperforms expectations.

Appropriate for: Well-capitalized operators with confidence in business model, established brands migrating from competitors, large-scale operations where revenue share would exceed fixed fees.

Hybrid models:

Structure: Reduced revenue share (8-15%) plus monthly platform fees (€10,000-€50,000), or tiered structures where revenue share decreases as volume grows.

Advantages: Balances capital efficiency with long-term cost optimization, aligns incentives while reducing total cost at scale, provides flexibility as business grows.

Disadvantages: More complex commercial negotiations, requires understanding break-even points, may include minimum guarantees creating downside risk.

Economic comparison example:

This illustrates why cost structure choice matters enormously at €2 million monthly NGR (€24 million annually), pure revenue share costs €7.2 million yearly versus €1.2 million for fixed licensing, a €6 million annual difference funding substantial operational expansion or marketing investment.

Technical Capabilities: Differentiators That Matter

Beyond core functionality, specific technical capabilities differentiate platforms and affect operational performance, time-to-market, and player experience.

Multi-tenancy and white-label architecture:

Strong platforms enable operators to launch multiple brands from single integration, sharing player databases and operational infrastructure while maintaining distinct brand identities. This matters for operators pursuing multi-brand strategies targeting different demographics or markets. Providers charging per brand versus supporting unlimited brands create dramatically different economics at scale.

API accessibility and customization:

Platforms providing comprehensive APIs enabling front-end customization allow operators to differentiate user experience and integrate with proprietary systems. Locked-down platforms where operators can only use provider’s front-end templates limit differentiation ability and market responsiveness.

Geographic scalability:

Platforms architected for multi-currency, multi-language, and multi-jurisdiction operation enable international growth without migration headaches. Providers licensed in your target markets with local payment integrations and regulatory compliance tools accelerate expansion versus those requiring custom development for each new market.

Real-time data and personalization:

Advanced platforms provide real-time behavioral data enabling personalized offers, dynamic content, and automated player journeys. Basic platforms only offer batch reporting requiring manual campaign management the difference between modern marketing automation and 2010-era email blasts.

Mobile optimization:

With 60-75% of iGaming traffic from mobile devices, native platform mobile optimization matters more than desktop experience. Evaluate actual mobile performance including load times, transaction flows, and game launch speeds rather than accepting provider claims about mobile readiness.

Integration flexibility:

Platforms supporting easy integration with third-party tools for CRM (Optimove, Salesforce), business intelligence (Tableau, Looker), payment processors beyond platform defaults, and marketing tools provide operational flexibility versus closed ecosystems forcing adoption of inferior provider modules.

Regulatory Compliance: Critical Support Component

Regulatory complexity represents one of the strongest arguments for platform providers versus in-house development compliance requirements vary dramatically across jurisdictions and evolve constantly.

Licensing and certification:

Providers holding licenses in target markets dramatically accelerate launch timelines. Obtaining UK Gambling Commission license individually requires 6-12 months and £250,000+ in legal and compliance costs, while launching under provider’s existing license enables market entry in 60-90 days. However, operating under provider licenses creates dependency if provider loses license or exits market, your operations cease immediately.

Responsible gambling tools:

UK, Sweden, Germany, and other regulated markets mandate specific responsible gambling features including deposit limits, loss limits, self-exclusion, reality checks, and mandatory timeout periods. Platforms with these tools built-in and configurable per jurisdiction prevent expensive custom development and regulatory violations during launch.

Regulatory reporting:

Automated regulatory reporting to UKGC, MGA, Swedish Gambling Authority, and other regulators saves substantial operational overhead versus manual report compilation. Providers managing this on behalf of operators reduce compliance staff requirements and regulatory risk.

AML/KYC verification:

Integrated anti-money laundering and know-your-customer tools including identity verification, source-of-funds checks, enhanced due diligence triggers, and transaction monitoring help operators meet complex compliance requirements across jurisdictions.

Market-specific restrictions:

Germany requires 5-second slot spin intervals, deposit limits, and self-exclusion database checks. Netherlands prohibits auto-play and mandates specific cooling-off periods. Ontario requires integration with provincial self-exclusion system. Platforms handling market-specific requirements prevent costly violations and delayed launches.

Decision Framework: Platform vs. In-House vs. Hybrid

The most important decision isn’t which platform provider but whether platform providers make sense versus in-house development or hybrid approaches.

Platform providers make sense when:

• Operators lack technical resources to build and maintain complex infrastructure
• Time-to-market urgency requires 3-6 month launch versus 18-36 months in-house development
• Multi-market strategies need rapid expansion across regulatory jurisdictions
• Capital constraints limit ability to fund €5-15 million platform development
• Core competency is brand building and marketing rather than technology
• Scale doesn’t yet justify fixed cost overhead of development teams

In-house development makes sense when:

• Operators generate €100+ million annual GGR justifying €10-20 million annual technology investment
• Unique product vision requires capabilities no platform provides
• Long-term cost optimization matters more than rapid market entry (in-house costs less at substantial scale)
• Control over technology roadmap and feature prioritization is strategic imperative
• Company has deep technical expertise and ability to recruit scarce gaming technology talent

Hybrid approaches work when:

• Operators use platforms for commoditized functions (game aggregation, payments) while building proprietary differentiators (unique sportsbook features, custom player loyalty programs)
• Established operators migrating from legacy in-house systems use platforms for new market entry while maintaining control of core markets
• Operators build front-end and player management while using platform back-end infrastructure

Real-world examples:

Flutter Entertainment (Paddy Power, Betfair, FanDuel) maintains largely proprietary technology due to €9 billion annual revenue justifying technology investment, though uses Kambi sportsbook for certain markets.

Kindred Group (Unibet, 32Red) operates hybrid model with proprietary PAM and significant in-house development while licensing Kambi sportsbook technology.

Entain (formerly GVC, operating Ladbrokes, Coral, bwin, PartyPoker) invested over £100 million annually in proprietary technology development, controlling full stack.

Aspire Global clients (many smaller operators) use complete turnkey solutions enabling market entry with minimal capital and technical resources.

The pattern: operators generating €50+ million annual revenue increasingly build proprietary technology for control and long-term cost optimization, while smaller operators rely on platforms for capital efficiency and speed.

Conclusion

Selecting iGaming platform providers requires evaluating technical capabilities, cost structures, regulatory support, and strategic fit rather than accepting marketing claims about innovation and flexibility. The decision between EveryMatrix, Kambi, Aspire Global, Playtech, or other providers depends on specific factors including target markets, sportsbook versus casino focus, budget constraints, time-to-market urgency, and in-house technical capabilities.

Cost structure selection matters enormously pure revenue share models charging 25-30% of NGR create low barriers to entry but become extremely expensive at scale, potentially costing €7+ million annually at €25 million revenue versus €1-2 million for fixed licensing. Operators confident in business models should negotiate hybrid or fixed-fee structures reducing long-term costs.

The most important decision precedes provider selection: whether platform providers make strategic sense versus in-house development. Operators generating under €20-30 million annual GGR typically benefit from platforms providing faster time-to-market, lower capital requirements, and reduced regulatory complexity. Those exceeding €50-100 million revenue should evaluate in-house or hybrid approaches delivering better long-term economics and strategic control despite higher upfront investment.

Platform provider selection isn’t about finding “the best” provider but rather matching provider capabilities, cost structure, and operational model to your specific business strategy, market focus, budget constraints, and growth timeline. The providers succeeding long-term aren’t those with the flashiest marketing but those whose technical architecture, commercial terms, and operational support genuinely align with operator success.

ALSO READ: Guide to Prevent iGaming Fraud in 2025