18+ National Responsible Gambling Programme 0800 006 008. Winners know when to stop. Get help
Demo Still being built, and getting better every day. The odds are real and ours. Still being built. The odds are real and ours. Why?Tell us what is wrong

The prices here are real and they are ours. We read every listed South African bookmaker roughly every four minutes and publish what we actually saw, with the time we saw it. Nothing on this site is estimated, modelled or bought in. We hold no data agreement with any bookmaker, so a price can be a few minutes old and the bookmaker's own price is the one that counts. How live is this?

So why call it a demo? Because we are a data company, and data gets better with time. Every day we run, the price record gets longer, the licence register gets more complete and the ranking rests on more evidence. Some pages are still being written and a few bookmakers are not fully covered yet.

We would rather be useful now than perfect later. What is here already answers the question most punters never get answered: who is actually paying most, right now, and who is actually licensed to take your bet. Waiting another six months to publish that would help nobody.

Where we are unsure, we say so. Where we have not checked something, we do not claim it. If you find something wrong, tell us and we will fix it and say we did.

▲LicensedBets Live odds

Head to head

Hollywoodbets vs Easybet

Hollywoodbets holds licence evidence from 5 provincial regulators against 1 for Easybet, which is the clearest difference between them on paper. Hollywoodbets scores higher on payments, usability and account controls. On a R500 first deposit, Easybet's welcome offer is worth R750, payable only after wagering 4x your deposit at odds of 2.0 or higher on sport, or 15x on slots (R2 000 of your own money) against R25 at Hollywoodbets. On our own price record, Easybet held the best or joint-best price 29% of the time against 22% for Hollywoodbets, measured across 315 002 comparable prices or more on each. We have not opened an account at either and we do not test withdrawals, so nothing here is a recommendation. Both review pages carry the licence number, the issuing board and the date we last checked, which is what you would want if something went wrong.

Measured, not claimed

Which one actually pays more

Across the prices we have recorded from both, Easybet was best or tied on 29.1% of the outcomes it priced, against 21.8% for Hollywoodbets. That is measured over 879 320 and 315 002 comparable prices respectively, not sampled and not supplied by either bookmaker.

Being best is not the whole picture, because a book that is rarely best can still be close. When it was not top, Easybet paid on average 4.7% below the best price on the board and Hollywoodbets 5.8%. Read the two numbers together rather than either alone: how often a book is best decides how often it saves you anything, and the shortfall decides what it costs you the rest of the time.

Both figures come from the same board, read on the same cycles, so they are directly comparable. They describe the outcomes we could compare, which is every market where enough bookmakers priced the same thing at the same time, and they say nothing about the bet you are about to place: check the live board for that.

The offers, side by side

Five provincial regulators

Hollywoodbets

R25 sign-up bonus, no deposit match

  • Score: 69/100
  • Payments: Card, Instant EFT / bank transfer, Retail and voucher-style options where listed in cashier
Bet at Hollywoodbets Read review

18+

Eastern Cape Gambling Board

Easybet

R5,000 150% match, min R50, wagering comes first

  • Score: 74/100
  • Payments: Card, Instant EFT / bank payment where listed, Voucher methods where listed
Read review

18+. No betting link: we hold no commercial relationship with this bookmaker.

Worked out

Which bonus pays more at your deposit?

A bigger ceiling is not a bigger bonus. This is what each offer actually pays across realistic first deposits.

Bonus value only. Wagering requirements, minimum odds and expiry decide whether a bonus is worth taking. 18+ only.
First deposit Hollywoodbets Easybet Better
R100 R25 R150 Easybet
R250 R25 R375 Easybet
R500 R25 R750 Easybet
R1,000 R25 R1,500 Easybet
R2,000 R25 R3,000 Easybet
R5,000 R25 R5,000 Easybet

Pick by need

Which one fits what you want?

If you want Pick Why
License evidence Verify both Open both review pages and confirm current South African license wording before relying on either operator.
Payment fit Check current cashier Deposit and withdrawal support can change by method, bank, and account-verification status.
Bonus or promotion terms Read current terms Offer value depends on opt-in, wagering, expiry, odds, and product-scope restrictions.

Licence check

Both licences, in full

Hollywoodbets

  • Entity: Hollywood Sportsbook provincial operating entities
  • Regulator: Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board · Gauteng Gambling Board · Mpumalanga Economic Regulator · Limpopo Gambling Board · KwaZulu-Natal Gaming and Betting Board
  • Licence: Western Cape: 10000107-029, stated in the Hollywoodbets footer and captured 2 May 2026. The National Gambling Board verified-operators register records 10110547-021 for this operator instead. BOTH are published here rather than one being chosen, because we cannot tell from outside which is current and guessing would be worse than showing the disagreement. The same rule is applied to TopBet. · Western Cape, per the national register: 10110547-021 · Gauteng: BRA-024 · Mpumalanga: 9-2-1-00051 · Limpopo: Book 007-LGB · KwaZulu-Natal: BOM0092 / ETHEK 43
  • Checked: 2026-05-02

Easybet

  • Entity: Easybet Group EC (Pty) Ltd
  • Regulator: Eastern Cape Gambling Board
  • Licence: Eastern Cape Bookmaker Licence No. ECBM 029
  • Checked: 2026-08-10

Before you deposit

Use this as a shortlist, not a decision. Confirm the current licence wording, the offer terms, identity checks and withdrawal rules on the bookmaker's own site before you fund an account. Gambling can be addictive. Only bet what you can afford to lose.

Sources checked