EMPIREOPTION Review

At FXCanary, our reviews are built on a foundation of direct evidence: we cross‑check public regulatory registers, dig into incorporation records, and systematically catalogue what real users are saying about their experiences. For EmpireOption, this meant consulting the official database of the Financial Services Authority of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, as well as international regulatory watchlists to confirm whether any license exists. We also analysed every available user review, including those from Trustpilot and independent trading forums, alongside aggregated complaint data from industry databases.

The picture that emerged is deeply concerning. EmpireOption’s legal entity, Baumann and Kraus Enterprises Ltd, appears on no financial register we examined. Its claims of a long operational history are contradicted by its relatively recent incorporation date. And the handful of retail traders willing to share their stories describe a pattern of large, unexpected fee demands that prevented them from accessing their funds—a hallmark of fraudulent schemes. This review unpacks all of that evidence, section by section, so you can make a fully informed decision.

Baumann and Kraus Enterprises Ltd, the company behind EmpireOption, was registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on 2 April 2019. Public records list the company with zero employees, a detail that strongly suggests it is a shell entity with no genuine operational staff. The registered address is not disclosed in the broker’s marketing, and our searches could not tie it to a physical office where trading or support activities might take place.

The broker’s own narrative, however, tells a different story. Its website claims EmpireOption was ‘established in 2010,’ a date that predates the incorporation by nearly a decade. No explanation is given for this gap, and we found no evidence of the brand operating under any previous legal name. Such chronological inconsistencies are common among offshore brokers that fabricate a pedigree to appear trustworthy. When a firm cannot agree with its own corporate history, treat every other claim with extreme scepticism.

EmpireOption holds zero verified licenses. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, where it is domiciled, has no regulatory framework for binary options or forex brokers. The local Financial Services Authority explicitly does not license, supervise, or guarantee the activities of such firms. This means EmpireOption is not required to segregate client money, maintain minimum capital, submit to audits, or provide any form of investor compensation.

For traders accustomed to brokers overseen by bodies like the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority or Australia’s ASIC, the contrast could not be starker. Regulated brokers must meet strict standards and answer to ombudsman services if disputes arise; EmpireOption answers to no one. Even among offshore jurisdictions, some—like Mauritius or Seychelles—offer light‑touch regulation, but SVG provides none at all. The complete absence of oversight is the single most important fact about this broker, and it alone justifies the high risk rating we have assigned.

EmpireOption’s stated minimum deposit is $200. Beyond that figure, the broker publishes almost nothing about its account offerings. We found no tiered account plans with differentiated spreads, bonuses, or premium services—information that is standard for even the most basic regulated broker. This opacity is not accidental; it leaves the firm free to adjust terms unilaterally once a client’s money is committed.

The lack of a demo account further isolates new traders. Without the ability to test the platform or develop strategies risk‑free, clients must deposit real money into an environment where the rules are unclear. The sole ‘account type’ appears to be a one‑size‑fits‑all setup, but given the absence of published documentation, that assumption is speculative. In practice, each trader’s experience seems to depend entirely on the goodwill of the broker—a precarious position.

The broker declines to disclose which payment methods it accepts, what withdrawal processing times to expect, or what fees may apply. This secrecy is a glaring red flag. Our review of user complaints reveals a consistent and disturbing pattern: traders report being told they must pay a large ‘trader’s commission’ before any withdrawal can be processed.

In the most detailed account, a client who deposited $150 was informed that a 15% commission—amounting to $515—was due before funds could be released. Even after paying, the withdrawal never arrived. Another user lost $4,000 and states that communication from the broker ceased entirely. These are not isolated glitches; they indicate a deliberate strategy to extract additional payments while withholding the principal. The absence of formal funding policies means such demands can be invented at any time, and the client has no contractual recourse.

EmpireOption promotes the SpotOption web platform, a familiar name in the binary options world. SpotOption itself is a legitimate software provider, but its availability to unregulated brokers means it can easily be misused. The platform offers standard binary option features: strike price selection, short expiry times ranging from 60 seconds to end‑of‑day, and basic technical charts. While the interface is functional, it provides no inherent safety to users; the platform is simply a tool, and its presence says nothing about the integrity of the broker operating behind it.

The asset list reportedly includes currencies, equities, commodities, and indices. No detailed contract specifications—such as payout percentages, overnight rules, or expiry schedules—are published. In binary options, even small differences in payout can drastically affect long‑term profitability, and the absence of this data makes it impossible to evaluate the broker’s competitiveness. Traders are essentially being asked to trade blind.

Beyond the minimum deposit and the notorious ‘trader’s commission’ described in reviews, EmpireOption provides no transparent fee schedule. Regulated binary options brokers typically disclose the payout structure for each trade—often around 65–85% for in‑the‑money wins. Here, we have no such clarity. The review evidence suggests that the real cost structure is punitive: a client with a $150 deposit was hit with a $515 fee that bore no relation to any trading activity or standard brokerage pricing.

This lack of transparency extends to any potential dormant account fees, withdrawal charges, or currency conversion costs. When a broker hides its fee structure, the inevitable outcome is that unsuspecting traders pay far more than they anticipate. Combined with the withdrawal blockade tactic, the overall cost picture is one of a venture designed to separate clients from their money, not to facilitate fair-market trading.

The user-review record for EmpireOption is unanimously negative. On Trustpilot, four reviews yield a weak 2.6 out of 5, and independent forums contain additional grievances. No positive feedback could be found, which is unusual even for controversial brokers. The complaints are not about slippage or occasional platform downtime; they are about the core functions of a brokerage: the ability to deposit, trade, and withdraw.

One review, referenced across multiple categories, tells a story that is damning in its detail. A trader deposited $150 and was promised the ability to withdraw within two weeks, provided a 15% commission was paid first. The demanded commission was $515—more than triple the initial deposit.

After paying, the user was met with silence. Another reviewer simply states they lost $4,000 and were ignored. These accounts are not ambiguous; they describe a deliberate process of soliciting deposits, fabricating fees, and cutting off communication.

We pay close attention to such narratives because they reveal patterns that quantitative data alone cannot capture. When every available reviewer reports the same type of problem, it is no longer a coincidence—it is evidence of a systematic business practice. EmpireOption’s user record is one of the most damning we have encountered.

Aggregated industry data—collected from multiple monitoring platforms and complaint databases—paints a picture that aligns precisely with the user reviews. EmpireOption’s trust score across these aggregators is low, reflecting numerous withdrawal‑related grievances and a lack of regulatory standing. While we do not rely on any single aggregator’s score, the consistency across different sources reinforces our concern.

Trustpilot’s 2.6 rating over only four reviews, however, is based on an extremely thin sample. That small number itself is a warning: a more established broker would accumulate hundreds or thousands of opinions. The absence of a meaningful volume of reviews, combined with the severity of the few that exist, suggests that most clients may have simply given up without leaving feedback, or that the broker’s client base is minuscule. Neither scenario reflects well on EmpireOption.

Our Scam Risk Score for EmpireOption is 75 out of 100, placing it firmly in the ‘Severe’ risk category. This score is not determined by a mathematical formula but by a qualitative assessment of all evidence: the lack of regulation, the shell‑like corporate structure, the false claims about company history, the opaque funding and fee policies, and—most critically—the unanimous user reports of blocked withdrawals and extortionate commission demands.

A score in this range indicates that FXCanary believes there is a high probability that traders who deposit with EmpireOption will be unable to retrieve their funds. It is not a guarantee of loss, but it is as strong a warning as we can give. We do not assign this rating lightly; it is reserved for brokers where the red flags are so numerous and so consistent that the risk of fraud is almost certain.

In theory, EmpireOption could address many of these concerns. It could pursue regulation in a reputable jurisdiction, publish a transparent fee and account structure, and publicly resolve all outstanding withdrawal complaints with concrete evidence. It could correct the discrepancy between its claimed 2010 founding and the 2019 incorporation, or provide a verifiable business history. Action such as joining a recognised dispute resolution scheme would go a long way toward demonstrating good faith.

However, in our experience, brokers with this profile rarely take such steps. The pattern of behaviour—demanding extra fees to release funds, then going silent—is not a sign of operational missteps; it is a hallmark of a deliberate scam. We see no indication that EmpireOption intends to change course, and until credible, verifiable evidence of reform emerges, we cannot recommend even a cautious approach.

Do not deposit money with EmpireOption. The evidence we have gathered leaves no room for a softer conclusion: this broker operates without regulation, conceals its costs, and has been repeatedly accused by its own customers of refusing to honour withdrawal requests unless further payments are made. The low minimum deposit of $200 is a lure, not a feature; it lowers the barrier for victims while setting the stage for much larger losses through fabricated fees.

If you are considering binary options trading, there are still legitimate, regulated venues available in certain jurisdictions where client funds are protected and withdrawals are processed reliably. Verify any broker’s license directly with the regulator’s public register, and never trade with a firm that cannot provide a clear, legal address and transparent terms. EmpireOption fails all of these basic tests, and the risk it poses to your capital is extreme.