Aggregator Catalogs by Licence: How Much Works in Your Market

Twelve of the 39 game studios that name SOFTSWISS as an aggregator document a UK Gambling Commission licence. That's 31%. For EveryMatrix it's 11 of 33, for Slotegrator 8 of 24, for Pariplay 6 of 20, and the share lands between 22% and 35% for every aggregator with a dozen or more studios behind it. The MGA column looks nothing like that: 89% to 92% across the four biggest names. An aggregator's catalog is one size on the sales page and a different size in each regulated market, and the second number barely depends on which aggregator you pick.

The figures come from crossing two fields on the 66 studio cards in the iGamingHub catalog: the aggregators each studio names on its own site, covered in what 66 studios say about distribution, and the licences the same studio documents, covered in what suppliers document about licences. Put together, they answer a question neither answers alone: if you sign with this aggregator, what share of the studios behind it can show a licence for the market you're launching in.

Licence coverage behind each aggregator

Each row takes the studios that name the aggregator and counts how many of them document each licence. Only aggregators named by at least twelve studios are shown; below that, one studio moves the percentage by eight points or more.

Three readings.

The MGA licence is the floor, and it doesn't separate anyone. Fifty of 66 studios document it, and among studios that name a top-four aggregator the share is nine in ten. An operator licensed in Malta can treat almost any aggregator's catalog as available. That is also why the MGA column tells you nothing about which aggregator to choose.

Sweden and Romania split the catalog roughly in half. Between 41% and 59% of each aggregator's studios document a Swedish licence, and between 48% and 83% a Romanian one. GR8 Tech's twelve stand out on Romania, ten of twelve, which fits a studio list weighted towards live casino and crash suppliers that sell into Eastern Europe. On Sweden the spread runs the other way: Hub88 is lowest at 11 of 27.

Britain and Ontario are where the catalog shrinks. Only 17 of the 66 studios document a UKGC licence and only 7 document Ontario registration. No aggregator's studio list beats 35% on the first or 25% on the second. In absolute terms the biggest lists still carry the most: SOFTSWISS's 39 include 12 UKGC studios and EveryMatrix's 33 include 11, against 4 each for GR8 Tech and Relax Gaming. The percentage is nearly flat. The headcount isn't.

It takes four aggregators to reach the UKGC studios

No single aggregator is named by more than 12 of the 17 studios that document a UKGC licence. The twelve on SOFTSWISS's side are 3 Oaks Gaming, Authentic Gaming, Elk Studios, Evolution, Habanero, Hacksaw Gaming, Pragmatic Play Live, Spinomenal, Spribe, TaDa Gaming, Thunderkick and Vivo Gaming. EveryMatrix adds Microgaming. BetConstruct adds BetGames and Kiron Interactive. Relax Gaming adds itself. That's 16 of 17 through four names, and the seventeenth, Popok Gaming, names no aggregator at all.

The same pattern is sharper in Ontario. Seven studios document registration there: Aviatrix, High 5 Games, Popok Gaming, Skywind Group, SmartSoft Gaming, Spribe and Wazdan. Three of the seven, Aviatrix, High 5 Games and Popok Gaming, name no aggregator, and the most any aggregator reaches is four. In a market where the regulator registers each supplier, studios appear to sell through direct integrations far more than the aggregator model suggests, and an aggregator contract signed for Europe doesn't carry over.

One more cut runs against intuition. The 16 studios that name no aggregator are not better licensed for doing their own distribution. Seven of them document an MGA licence, against 43 of the 50 that name one, and six document no licence at all, against five of 50. Studios that publish a partner list also publish a licence list. The ones that publish neither are the ones that turn up in an aggregator's "200+ providers" count without a line on their own site to check it against.

What this means for operators

Size the catalog for your licence, not for the sales page. An aggregator that carries 150 studios may carry 50 you can switch on under a UKGC licence and fewer still in Ontario, and the catalog suggests the ratio will be similar whoever you sign with. Ask for the count per regulator before the commercial terms: studios certified and live for your jurisdiction, not studios integrated. If the vendor can't produce that list in a day, it doesn't keep one.

Check the studio's permission, not the aggregator's. A game aggregator carries the integration. It doesn't carry the supplier's authorisation. Britain requires a studio to hold its own gambling software licence to supply licensed operators, Malta has the B2B critical gaming supply licence, and Sweden has required a B2B permit from Spelinspektionen since July 2023. If a game goes live on your site without the studio's permission in that market, the breach sits with you. The game certification entry covers the lab side of the same check, which is per game build and per market.

Plan for more than one channel in the strictest markets. On the studio cards, reaching 16 of the 17 UKGC studios takes four aggregators, and three of the seven Ontario studios sit outside every aggregator list. A regulated-market lobby is usually one aggregator plus a handful of direct deals, and the direct deals are the tier-one studios you can least afford to launch without. The aggregator comparison covers the break-even between the two.

If you're launching under an MGA or Curacao licence, most of this doesn't bind and the aggregator decision goes back to price, speed and regional content. It starts to bind the day you add a second licence, and that's the moment operators discover that half the lobby stays dark in the new market.

Methodology and sources

Both fields come from the iGamingHub catalog as recorded on 3 October 2026 across all 66 game studio cards listed at that date. Aggregator names are the ones each studio publishes on its own website, partner pages or announcements, checked against a fixed list of twelve aggregator names plus two recorded by hand. Licences are the ones each studio documents on its own site with licensing wording next to the regulator's name; a bare market list doesn't count. A cell in the table is the number of studios that name the aggregator and also document the licence, as a share of all studios naming that aggregator.

Three limits apply. The licence columns record what a studio documents publicly, not what it holds: a studio licensed in Britain through a parent group, or one that doesn't publish its licences, counts as not documenting UKGC, so the true shares are somewhat higher and the gaps between markets are the dependable part. A studio naming an aggregator doesn't mean every title is live through it in every market; certification is per game and per jurisdiction. And the aggregator rows overlap heavily, since the typical studio names four, which is why the percentages sit so close together. No figure here has been checked against a regulator's public register, which remains the only authoritative source for any single supplier.