1Market Review

Our investigation into 1Market began by cross‑checking the broker’s regulatory credentials directly against the public registers of the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC). We verified that licence number 366/18 is active and valid, confirming Exelcius Prime Ltd.’s status as a regulated Cyprus Investment Firm.

Next, we gathered and analysed the complete user‑review record across multiple platforms, including Trustpilot and industry forums, paying close attention to concrete, firsthand accounts of deposits, withdrawals and support interactions. We also examined aggregated industry data, although we do not name any single data aggregator, to see how 1Market’s formal score compares with the everyday experiences of its clients.

Finally, we evaluated the broker’s own published materials — including its website, account terms and platform descriptions — against the realities described by users, looking for inconsistencies that could signal operational or trust‑worthiness gaps.

1Market is the trading name of Exelcius Prime Ltd., incorporated in Cyprus in April 2021. Its registered address is a serviced‑office building in Limassol, a common arrangement for many CySEC‑regulated brokers. The firm’s corporate structure is lean; public records indicate zero employees, which suggests that key functions such as customer support and dealing may be outsourced or handled by a small team of affiliated contractors.

A broker that reports no direct employees is not automatically a red flag, but it does raise questions about operational depth and the capacity to handle client issues in‑house. In a highly competitive market, the lack of an identifiable team can contribute to the feeling of anonymity and unresponsiveness that some clients have reported.

Exelcius Prime Ltd. holds a CySEC Derivatives Trading License (STP) under number 366/18, authorising the firm to offer contracts for differences (CFDs) on a straight‑through‑processing basis. As a Cyprus Investment Firm, 1Market must comply with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and the Investment Services and Activities and Regulated Markets Law.

This regulatory status grants several client protections that are meaningful in theory. Client funds must be segregated from the company’s own funds, and negative balance protection ensures that retail clients cannot lose more than their account balance. Moreover, clients are covered by the Investor Compensation Fund (ICF) up to €20,000 should the broker become insolvent.

However, it is important to note that CySEC regulation does not guarantee a flawless operational experience. Enforcement actions against Cyprus‑based brokers are not uncommon, and the regulator’s own track record on client compensation has been criticised for being slow. For UK traders specifically, the loss of access after Brexit and the absence of Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) oversight are significant; several reviews describe how the broker halted UK services abruptly, leaving traders to close positions at a loss.

1Market’s account offering is extensive but somewhat opaque. The two publicly detailed MT5 accounts — Standard and Zero Spread — are straightforward: a $250 minimum deposit, 1:500 maximum leverage, and a choice between paying via the spread or via a $7 per lot commission. These accounts resemble what many retail traders expect from an STP broker.

Beyond these, the ladder of Mini, Standard, Gold, Platinum, Diamond and VIP tiers hints at a bespoke service model aimed at increasing deposits. Such tiered structures are often used to upsell clients to higher deposit levels with promises of tighter spreads, dedicated account managers and premium support. However, without clear, publicly available pricing for these higher tiers, traders cannot easily compare the true cost‑to‑trade or determine whether the perks justify the much larger commitment.

For our assessment, the existence of a $100,000 VIP tier signals an institutional or high‑net‑worth focus, but the majority of real‑user complaints come from retail clients who deposited far smaller amounts and faced difficulties. This mismatch between upmarket branding and retail‑level service problems is a recurring theme in the user record.

One of the most concerning findings in our research is the complete absence of publicly listed deposit and withdrawal methods. While many brokers display their payment partners prominently, 1Market’s website offers no such transparency. This lack of information forces prospective clients to trust that the broker will provide reasonable funding options — an unnecessary risk.

The real‑user reviews paint a troubling picture of the funding experience. Multiple clients describe deposits that vanished without being credited to their accounts. One reviewer states, “I realice una transferencia de 6006Euros … pasados los días la transferencia no constaba en el haber de mi cuenta,” reporting that a transfer of €6,006 never appeared. Another user complained that the broker demanded additional documents after a withdrawal was initiated, stalling the process indefinitely.

There are also allegations of unauthorised withdrawal requests, with one client receiving an email about a withdrawal they never initiated. While a small number of users report fast and problem‑free withdrawals, the weight of negative testimony suggests that getting funds out of 1Market can be a lengthy and uncertain ordeal.

On paper, 1Market offers a competitive range of CFDs: forex, stocks, indices, commodities and cryptocurrencies. The maximum leverage of 1:500 on forex is among the highest available under CySEC regulation, appealing to traders who want to maximise capital efficiency. However, such leverage also amplifies risk, and inexperienced traders have complained of losing their entire deposit rapidly.

The broker provides two platforms. MetaTrader 5 is the industry benchmark, giving traders access to advanced charting tools, algorithmic trading and a large ecosystem of expert advisors. The proprietary Paragonex platform is marketed as simple and intuitive, but its lack of public feedback and third‑party testing leaves more questions than answers.

From the user reviews, the MT5 experience appears satisfactory for those who could trade without incident; one user noted “accurate order execution and no slippage” on US stock CFDs. However, other reviews mention that profitable trades were sometimes not executed, and that the broker’s own actions — such as revoking UK access — forced the closure of positions against the trader’s will.

In the Standard MT5 account, trading costs appear competitive: a minimum spread of 1 pip with no commission is average for an STP broker. The Zero Spread account charges a $7 per lot round‑turn commission, which can be attractive for scalpers and high‑frequency traders, provided that the non‑spread costs are indeed zero.

Yet the lack of disclosed spreads for higher‑tier accounts leaves a gap that makes it impossible to compare the true all‑in cost. Additionally, several user complaints mention hidden commissions and unexpected fees. One reviewer warned that the broker “sneakingly charge commissions that get you into more trouble,” while another alluded to costs that became apparent only after opening trades.

Furthermore, the broker’s decision to halt services for UK traders without notice added a hidden cost: traders were forced to close positions at a loss, effectively imposing an involuntary exit penalty. Such operational unpredictability makes it difficult to rely on the advertised fee structure.

The user feedback we analysed is overwhelmingly negative. Across platforms, 1Market holds a Trustpilot rating of 1.4 out of 5 over 67 reviews, and aggregated industry scores we consulted pointed to a similar low level of trust. The most recurrent complaints fall into three categories: (1) outright scam accusations, (2) unresponsive support, and (3) withdrawal failures.

Scam accusations are not merely name‑calling; they are often accompanied by specific monetary claims. One user says, “They are takin all my £5000 mony not refund a pound,” while another asserts, “THIS IA A SCAM COMPANY Avoid at all cost!” The emotional tone reflects genuine financial loss, and the consistency of such claims across different review platforms gives them additional weight.

Support unresponsiveness is another thread that runs through many stories. Clients report that emails, calls and live chats go unanswered for weeks. One trader with open positions pleaded, “I have exhausted all my options to contact them … but no one bothers to respond.” The sudden disappearance of previously working contact numbers and email addresses, as reported by several users, suggests a broker that may be scaling back its support infrastructure or changing identity.

Withdrawal problems round out the negative picture. Besides the aforementioned missing deposit, traders describe mismatched withdrawal amounts, demands for extra documents, and profits that could not be withdrawn. A particularly disturbing narrative describes a user who was assigned an analyst who gave losing trading advice, and after the account balance dropped, the broker did not process the withdrawal requests.

On the positive side, a small number of reviewers report fast withdrawals and a helpful account manager. One user updated a previous negative review, acknowledging that the panic was due to a misunderstanding of opening hours, and that the platform overall “was pretty easy to use and quick withdrawals.” A few others praise the tight spreads and MT5 execution. These accounts, however, are vastly outnumbered by the complaints, and it is impossible to know whether they represent a vanishingly lucky subset or promotional content.

Notably, the broker’s handling of UK clients stands out as a particularly poor chapter. Several reviewers recount how 1Market lost its ability to service UK traders — likely due to Brexit‑related licensing — and closed open positions without adequate notice, causing forced losses. This not only reflects poorly on the broker’s operation but also raises questions about its resilience in the face of regulatory change.

Aggregated industry data assigns 1Market a low‑risk score, largely because its CySEC licence is genuine and the firm has a short operational history with no public fines or regulatory actions. FXCanary’s own quantitative model yields a Scam Risk Score of 18 out of 100, placing the broker in the low‑risk category.

However, this quantitative score sits in stark contrast to the deluge of negative real‑user testimony. Our editorial team sees a broker with a legitimate regulatory wrapper that nevertheless fails to deliver the basic service levels that clients expect. The gap between the formal safety indicators and the human experience is one of the widest we have encountered, underscoring why a risk score alone is not enough to evaluate a broker.

Prospective clients should consider several red flags before opening an account with 1Market. First, the absence of any publicly listed deposit and withdrawal methods is a transparency failure that makes it difficult to assess the safety of funding. A broker that does not clearly disclose how you can get your money in and out should be approached with extreme caution.

Second, the consistent reports of unresponsive support — including defunct contact details — are a serious operational warning. In a crisis, the ability to reach your broker is paramount, and the user record suggests that 1Market cannot be relied upon for timely communication.

Third, the abrupt cessation of UK services and the resulting forced trade closures demonstrate a lack of forward‑planning and respect for client interests. Such events can happen again, particularly given the broker’s slim operational footprint and reliance on a single Cyprus‑based entity.

Finally, the sheer volume of scam‑related complaints, while not legally conclusive, is a pattern that no careful trader should ignore. Even if the CySEC licence offers a layer of protection, the emotional and financial toll of repeated withdrawal failures and lost funds is a real risk.

1Market presents a confusing picture. On paper, it is a CySEC‑regulated broker offering high leverage, MT5 and a variety of account types at a low entry price. Our quantitative model assigns a Scam Risk Score of 18/100, indicating low formal risk. Yet the real‑user feedback tells a far more alarming story: missing deposits, abandoned customer support, and multiple accusations of scamming.

We do not draw a definitive legal conclusion of fraud, but our editorial assessment is that the broker is not safe for retail traders who cannot afford to lose their capital or endure prolonged service outages. The operational inconsistencies and transparency gaps are too great to overlook.

If you are determined to use 1Market, we recommend starting with the minimum deposit, thoroughly testing withdrawals with a small amount, and maintaining records of all interactions. For most traders, however, there are other CySEC‑regulated brokers with stronger, more transparent track records that present a far lower headache risk.