iGaming licence comparison: Malta vs Curaçao vs Gibraltar

A. Fetisova

Business Development Manager

22 January 2026

iGaming licence comparison: Malta vs Curaçao vs Gibraltar

Jump to Section:

In 2025, the online gambling industry is going through another major shift. Malta continues to hold its position as a European “gold standard”, Curaçao is closing the chapter of legacy sublicences and moving to a stricter but clearer LOK regime (in force since 24 December 2024), and Gibraltar — with the new Gambling Act 2025 — is reinforcing its premium status for operators who value a UK-style regulatory approach.

This iGaming license Europe comparison looks at three of the most in-demand licensing routes — the MGA license, the Curaçao gaming licence (LOK), and the Gibraltar gambling licenсe — and explains how they differ by reputation, requirements, speed, access to PSP/EMI providers, and real market perception.

Best iGaming jurisdiction for your business: quick matrix (Malta vs Curaçao vs Gibraltar)

Choose a jurisdiction based on your operating profile: startups often prioritise the speed of a Curaçao gambling license, scale-ups value the prestige of a Malta gaming license, and B2B providers may prefer Gibraltar for perceived stability and strong oversight.

Comparison matrix: Malta, Curaçao, Gibraltar (updated: 13 Oct 2025):

Criterion	Malta (MGA)	Curaçao (LOK)	Gibraltar (Gambling Act 2025)
Status in 2025	Active; the European Commission issued a Letter of Formal Notice related to Article 56A (18 June 2025). (Malta Gaming Authority)	LOK in force since 24 Dec 2024; transition away from sublicences completed on 15 Oct 2025. (gamingcontrolcuracao.org)	Act in force since 1 Oct 2025; 6-month transition period. (Hassans)
Reputation / market perception	EU-grade standards, strong RG/AML oversight; deep supplier ecosystem	Reputation is strengthening under LOK, with clearer rules than “legacy” Curaçao	Strong remote gambling brand; further reinforced by the new Act
Substance / local presence	Corporate governance and key functions expected in Malta (office, staff) to match MGA expectations	Requirements tightening (from a liberal model to a more controlled one; minimum staffing expected)	More local presence and accountability (jobs, management, investment)
Management vetting (fit & proper)	Owner/management checks and compliance review	Fit & proper under new CGA oversight (expanded UBO checks)	Approved persons model and personal accountability for key roles
RG / AML supervision	Mature framework (KYC, self-exclusion, ongoing monitoring)	Stronger under LOK (ADR, supervisory tools; sanctions screening)	Strong supervision, expanded regulator powers (incl. source of funds expectations)
Payments / PSP / EMI access	Typically broadest options due to reputation; easier access to EU EMI/banking	Improving with LOK; depends on risk profile and GEO (often more crypto-friendly)	Stable access; depends on model and AML controls (MCC 7995 considerations)
Indicative application timeline	Multi-stage process, typically 3–6 months	Portal-based process, often 2–4 months	Often 4–6 months (new procedures post-01.10.2025)
Best for	EU-focused brands, scale-ups, and B2B suppliers	Startups and global-GEO operators; often a better fit for crypto casino models	Operators where strong oversight and UK-oriented reputation are critical

Free iGaming strategy call

Book a consultation

Licences & regulators: MGA license, Curaçao LOK and Gibraltar remote gambling licence

Below are three quick “cards” summarising what matters most as of December 2025: who issues the licence, licence types, permitted scope, how applications are submitted, and what changed in 2025.

Malta Gaming Authority (MGA)

Regulator & legal basis: Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), Gaming Act (Chapter 583).
Licence types: B2C (Types 1–3: casino, sportsbook); B2B (Type 4: supplier licence for critical gaming supply).
Scope: Online casino, sportsbook, betting exchange (subject to market restrictions and geoblocking where required). White-label models can be supported.
2025 highlight: European Commission procedure regarding Article 56A (public policy exception).

Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) under LOK

Regulator & legal basis: Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA), LOK (in force since 24.12.2024).
Licence types: B2C (operator) and B2B (supplier for platforms/integrations).
Scope: Full spectrum — casino, sportsbook, virtual sports; crypto can be permitted with stronger AML controls. Legacy sublicences are no longer allowed.
2025 highlight: transition completed on 15 October 2025; legacy seal/transition regime ended in favour of direct licensing.

If Curaçao is your choice — see the step-by-step Curaçao gaming licence guide

Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner

Regulator & legal basis: Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner, Gambling Act 2025 (in force since 01.10.2025).
Licence types: B2C operator (remote / non-remote), B2B operator, and Support Services (e.g., marketing, CRM).
Scope: Casino, betting, poker; perimeter expands under the new framework; “brass-plate” operations are explicitly discouraged.
2025 highlight: 6-month transition period and stronger focus on substantive presence.

Compliance & player protection: AML, Responsible Gambling, Substance & Fit-and-Proper

Compliance is the backbone of any Malta vs Curaçao gaming license, Malta vs Gibraltar gaming license, or Curaçao vs Gibraltar gambling license decision. Below is a high-level comparison of core controls (updated for 2025).

Area	Malta (MGA)	Curaçao (LOK)	Gibraltar (Gambling Act 2025)
AML / KYC	Strict: ongoing monitoring, PEP screening, and source of wealth/source of funds expectations	Strengthened: fit & proper for UBOs, sanctions checks, higher CFT focus	Expanded: AML officer expectations, regular audits, and alignment with banking standards (incl. MCC 7995 considerations)
Responsible Gambling (RG)	Mature toolkit: self-exclusion, affordability checks, robust age verification	Newer framework: ADR, player limits, RTP/RNG certification expectations	Strong: comprehensive safer gambling tools, faster dispute resolution, GDPR-aligned controls
Substance & governance	Local office and governance oversight; dedicated compliance function	Minimum staffing and written policies; shift away from purely “offshore” setups	Economic substance and accountability; approved persons/key function holders
Fit-and-proper	Detailed management due diligence; clean criminal record required	Due diligence for key roles; person-by-person checks	Personal accountability model: key executives vetted and can be held individually responsible

iGaming readiness audit

Get an audit

2025 changes to know

In short, 2025–2026 will test operators’ adaptability more than ever before — preparation and substance are key. Key regulatory risks to factor into a best jurisdiction for online casino 2026 decision:

Malta (Article 56A): the European Commission issued a Letter of Formal Notice on 18 June 2025. This does not stop enforcement actions, but it adds uncertainty in cross-border disputes and litigation strategy for Malta-licensed operators.
Curaçao (LOK transition): sublicences have been removed; operators who did not adapt to the new regime risk revocation or being treated as unlicensed. The transition deadline referenced by industry/regulatory commentary is 15 October 2025.
Gibraltar (Gambling Act 2025): the new Act raises the substance bar — “brass-plate” structures are at risk. A 6-month transition framework has been discussed in connection with implementation.

Note: These developments can affect what is realistically the best jurisdiction for online casino 2026 — choose based on GEO strategy (EU focus often points to an MGA licence; global strategies may consider Curaçao; UK-oriented positioning may favour Gibraltar).

iGaming Payments & Banking (PSP/EMI)

Payments are often the make-or-break factor for licensed operators. In 2025, Malta usually wins on availability, Curaçao often wins on crypto flexibility, and Gibraltar is valued for stability — provided your AML controls match your risk profile.

Malta: typically the smoothest PSP/EMI onboarding thanks to reputation. iGaming payments Malta setups often rely on segregated/safeguarding accounts and stronger chargeback management — a practical fit for EU traffic.
Curaçao: improving with LOK. EMI onboarding depends heavily on risk appetite and GEO; crypto-friendly flows can be supported, but fraud/chargeback risk may be higher.
Gibraltar: access can be stable with the right controls. Safeguarding and governance expectations are higher; acquirers will closely review AML/KYC and source of funds.

Timeline & Costs: Application Process, Fees, Ongoing Compliance

Timelines and costs are indicative and depend on your ownership structure, product mix, GEO, and readiness. For budgeting, use ranges rather than fixed figures and plan for ongoing compliance spend.

Gibraltar: indicative timeline 4–6 months (application review + substance evidence).
Malta (MGA): indicative timeline 3–6 months (application review + systems audit).
Curaçao (LOK): indicative timeline 2–4 months (portal process, due diligence).

Planning to launch iGaming in 2026 without costly mistakes?

FAQ: iGaming licences 2026

Which gambling license is best for startup?

A Curaçao gambling license is often the fastest route (typically 2–4 months) with broad global scope. If your core GEO is the EU, a Malta gaming license (MGA license) is usually the more defendable option.

iGaming license timeline Malta vs Curacao?

Malta (MGA): commonly 3–6 months. Curaçao (LOK): commonly 2–4 months — often better for a quick launch, provided you can pass fit-and-proper and AML checks.

Can I operate in the EU with a Curaçao gaming licence?

In practice, you should expect geoblocking and tougher market access in many EU countries. If EU market access is central, an MGA licence or (depending on the model) a Gibraltar remote gambling licence may be more suitable.

Do I need local presence for a Gibraltar gambling license?

Yes. Under the Gambling Act 2025, substance expectations are higher: office, staff/key functions, and accountable governance are typically required.

MGA license vs Curaçao for crypto casino?

Curaçao is often considered more crypto-friendly under LOK (with stronger AML controls). Malta is better aligned with heavily regulated markets, where compliance and payments stability are prioritised.

Official references