How We Rate Prediction Markets
Our Approach
Prediction markets are structurally different from sportsbooks. Most operate as peer-to-peer exchanges rather than counterparty books — the platform isn't taking the other side of your trade, it's providing the marketplace. That changes what "quality" means: instead of asking whether the vig is fair, we're asking whether the platform delivers reliable order execution, honest resolution, and real liquidity at the prices it advertises.
Vegas Insider's prediction markets audience is newer to this vertical than more specialized “betting” audiences. We've built that into our weighting. We lean harder on the protective dimensions — regulatory clarity, fund safety, and resolution accuracy — because users who are still getting oriented in this space are less equipped to evaluate legal and custodial risk on their own. Our framework is designed to do more of that work for them.
Check out our comprehensive criteria for rating products.
Rating Dimensions at a Glance
| Dimension | Weight | Measurability |
| Resolution Accuracy & Dispute History | 20% | Accuracy: Measurable / Conflict of Interest: Directional |
| Market Quality & Liquidity | 17% | Spread/Fill Rate: Measurable / Market Making: Directional |
| Regulatory Status & Legal Clarity | 17% | Registration: Measurable / Active Exposure: Directional |
| Payout Reliability | 14% | Measurable |
| Market Variety vs. Depth | 10% | Measurable |
| Fund Segregation & Safety | 9% | Directional |
| Platform & UX Quality | 5% | Measurable |
| Responsible Gambling Tools | 4% | Measurable |
| Customer Support Quality | 3% | Measurable |
| Bonus & Promo Transparency | 3% | Measurable |
Why the weighting looks the way it does: Regulatory Status and Fund Safety sit higher here than on our more experienced-audience properties, because newer users are less equipped to assess legal and custodial risk independently. Market Quality is weighted slightly lower for the same reason in reverse — this audience is less likely to be trading meaningful size or scrutinizing order book depth. Resolution Accuracy holds steady at 20% regardless of audience — how a platform resolves contested markets is non-negotiable no matter who's asking.
Market Quality & Liquidity (17%)
For a sportsbook, quality is about the vig. For a prediction market, it's about whether you can actually execute at the price you see — and how badly that price degrades once you try to move real size.
| Sub-Criterion | Weight | What We Assess |
| Bid-Ask Spread on Major Markets | 35% | Gap between best buy and sell prices on high-volume contracts |
| Fill Rate at Stated Price | 30% | Whether your desired position actually fills at the displayed price, at meaningful size |
| Order Book Depth | 20% | Liquidity beyond the top price; how quickly the market degrades with size |
| Market Making Quality | 15% | Consistent two-sided liquidity, including behavior during major events |
Bid-Ask Spread Scoring
| Spread | Score Band | Threshold |
| 1–2 cents on major contracts | 9–10 | Genuinely liquid; competitive with best-in-class |
| 3–4 cents | 6–8 | Acceptable; some friction but functional |
| 5–8 cents | 3–5 | Meaningful friction; stated prices substantially misleading |
| >8 cents or inconsistent spreads | 1–2 | Platform liquidity is nominal; prices aren't real |
Penalties
| Penalty Trigger | Impact |
| Documented market manipulation by platform-affiliated accounts | 0.5x — full dimension |
| Spreads consistently >10 cents on advertised high-volume markets | 0.7x — Bid-Ask sub-criterion |
| Trading suspended during peak activity without a stated circuit-breaker policy | 0.6x — Market Making sub-criterion |
Resolution Accuracy & Dispute History (20%)
This dimension has no real equivalent anywhere else in our ratings framework. Prediction markets can have genuinely contested outcomes, where the platform's own interpretation of contract language determines who gets paid. It's happened publicly before, and it remains the single clearest trust signal in this vertical.
| Sub-Criterion | Weight | What We Assess |
| Resolution Accuracy | 40% | Whether markets resolve correctly against their stated contract rules |
| Resolution Timeliness | 25% | How quickly markets resolve once the underlying event concludes |
| Dispute Process Quality | 20% | Whether there's a clear, accessible, fair appeals process — and whether it actually produces reversals |
| Conflict of Interest Safeguards | 15% | Structural protections against the platform resolving in its own financial interest |
Penalties
| Penalty Trigger | Impact |
| Documented misresolution not corrected after appeal | 0.5x — full dimension |
| Platform-controlled resolution on a contract where the platform held a financial position | 0.5x — full dimension |
| Resolution delayed beyond 30 days on a concluded event, without explanation | 0.6x — Resolution Timeliness sub-criterion |
Bonus: Zero documented misresolutions over the trailing 24 months, combined with an independent resolution mechanism that has at least one documented reversal on record, earns a 1.1x multiplier on the Resolution Accuracy sub-criterion.
Regulatory Status & Legal Clarity (17%)
We weight regulatory status higher here than we do elsewhere. Newer prediction market users are less equipped to assess jurisdictional risk themselves, so the framework carries more of that burden on their behalf.
Context: The CFTC asserts exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts. In April 2026, the Third Circuit affirmed an injunction protecting a registered exchange's sports event contracts from New Jersey enforcement, while other courts have reached different conclusions elsewhere. The legal landscape here is genuinely unsettled and varies by state.
| Sub-Criterion | Weight | What We Assess |
| Regulatory Registration | 40% | CFTC designation, state-level compliance, offshore legal structure |
| Active Legal Exposure | 35% | Pending litigation, regulatory challenges, no-action letter status |
| Geographic Availability Clarity | 25% | How clearly the platform discloses where it is and isn't legal to use |
Regulatory Registration Scoring
| Regulatory Status | Score Band | Threshold |
| CFTC-registered Designated Contract Market (DCM) | 9–10 | Highest regulatory standard in US prediction markets |
| CFTC-registered but under active review or challenge | 6–8 | Registered, but legal clarity isn't settled |
| Operating under state-level exemption or informal tolerance | 4–6 | Legal, but precarious |
| Offshore with no US regulatory registration | 2–4 | Meaningful risk |
| Operating in clear violation of regulatory guidance | 0–1 | Not recommended |
Penalties
| Penalty Trigger | Impact |
| Active CFTC enforcement action | 0.5x — full dimension |
| Operating in restricted states without adequate geoblocking | 0.7x — Geographic Availability sub-criterion |
| Failure to geofence a state under an active injunction | 0.6x — Jurisdiction sub-criterion |
| Regulatory status change (loss of registration or DCM designation) | Triggers immediate re-score |
Payout Reliability (14%)
Same structural logic we apply to sportsbooks, with fund safety broken out into its own dedicated dimension below.
| Sub-Criterion | Weight | What We Assess |
| Withdrawal Processing Speed | 40% | Time from request to funds received, across all available methods |
| Withdrawal Method Variety | 35% | Fiat vs. crypto options, geographic availability |
| Documented Complaint Rate | 25% | Verified, unresolved withdrawal issues |
Fund Segregation & Safety (9%)
We weight this higher on Vegas Insider than elsewhere in our ratings portfolio — 9% here versus 7.5% on our more experienced-audience site. Newer prediction market users are less likely to evaluate custodial risk on their own, so we build in extra protection by weighting this dimension more heavily.
| Fund Safety Profile | Score Band | Threshold |
| State-regulated with mandatory segregation requirements | 9–10 | Regulatory framework enforces the protection |
| Voluntary segregation with third-party verification | 7–8 | Platform claims segregation; independently verifiable |
| Smart contract custody with audited code | 5–7 | Funds secured by code; audit currency and recency matters |
| Platform-controlled custody, no segregation disclosure | 2–4 | User funds at meaningful risk in an insolvency scenario |
| Commingled funds confirmed, or custody undisclosed | 1–2 | Hard failure — not recommended |
Penalties
| Penalty Trigger | Impact |
| Platform insolvency or fund freeze with no resolution pathway | 0.0x — full dimension |
| Funds held in commingled accounts, confirmed | 0.5x — full dimension |
| Crypto-only withdrawal with no fiat option disclosed at signup | 0.7x — Method Variety (Payout) sub-criterion |
Additional Dimensions
The remaining five dimensions — Market Variety vs. Depth (10%), Platform & UX Quality (5%), Responsible Gambling Tools (4%), Customer Support Quality (3%), and Bonus & Promo Transparency (3%) — use the same sub-criteria and scoring bands applied across our full prediction markets ratings portfolio. Only the weights are adjusted for this audience. See our general ratings overview for full sub-criterion detail.
Worked Example: How a Score Comes Together
Below is a hypothetical CFTC-registered prediction market with strong market quality but a notable fund safety concern — platform-controlled custody with no segregation disclosure.
| Dimension | Weight | Raw Score | Penalty/Bonus | Adjusted | Contribution |
| Market Quality & Liquidity | 17% | 8.5 | None | 8.50 | 1.445 |
| Resolution Accuracy & Dispute History | 20% | 8.0 | None | 8.00 | 1.600 |
| Regulatory Status & Legal Clarity | 17% | 9.0 | None | 9.00 | 1.530 |
| Payout Reliability | 14% | 7.5 | None | 7.50 | 1.050 |
| Market Variety vs. Depth | 10% | 7.0 | None | 7.00 | 0.700 |
| Fund Segregation & Safety | 9% | 3.0 | None | 3.00 | 0.270 |
| Platform & UX Quality | 5% | 7.5 | None | 7.50 | 0.375 |
| Responsible Gambling Tools | 4% | 7.0 | None | 7.00 | 0.280 |
| Customer Support Quality | 3% | 6.5 | None | 6.50 | 0.195 |
| Bonus & Promo Transparency | 3% | 7.0 | None | 7.00 | 0.210 |
Final Score: 7.7 / 10
No penalty multipliers were triggered in this example — but notice what the low Fund Safety score is doing on its own. A raw score of 3.0 at 9% weight pulls the final rating down by roughly half a point compared to a platform scoring 9.0 on that same dimension. Because Fund Safety carries more weight on Vegas Insider than on our other properties, custodial risk shows up meaningfully in the final number even when nothing has technically gone wrong yet.