ETX Deposit & Withdrawal

Depositing and withdrawing funds should be the most straightforward part of a trader’s relationship with a broker. At ETX—now rebranded as OvalX and operating under Monecor (London) Limited—the reality is more complex. FXCanary’s review of user records reveals a funding experience that swings wildly between praise for prompt service and alarming tales of blocked withdrawals and unexpected charges.

While the broker holds an FCA licence, the regulator has noted that this entity is a suspicious clone, a detail that casts a long shadow over its funding practices. Our analysis draws on real trader feedback, industry databases, and the broker’s own disclosures to give you an unvarnished look at what happens when you move money to and from an ETX account.

On the surface, getting money into an ETX account appears uncomplicated. A number of traders report an easy onboarding process and no immediate funding hurdles. In our sample, positive mentions often accompany broader compliments about the platform and account managers.

For example, one 5-star reviewer stated, “I have been with ETX for a long time and experience with everyone I have ever dealt with has always been spot on!” Another described “prompt cash withdrawals” as a hallmark of their tenure, implying that deposits were equally smooth.

Yet these glowing accounts account for only a fraction of the deposit-related feedback. Out of 17 mentions, 10 were negative—a ratio that signals serious friction. The broker does not publicly list its supported deposit methods, minimum amounts, or processing times on a centralised page. This lack of transparency forces traders to rely on hearsay or an account manager’s word, which can lead to confusion. In some cases cited by users, deposits were held up without explanation, and the broker allegedly went silent.

The most worrying cluster of complaints centres on withdrawals. FXCanary tallied 28 withdrawal-related grievances across multiple review platforms, with 13 distinctly negative experiences compared to just 8 positive ones. The disparity is not just numerical—it reveals a broker where getting your money back can become a protracted battle.

One reviewer recounted, “I’ve had no reply from customer service or any confirmation emails. Is this company even trading? They have taken my money and now I can't withdraw.” Although they later managed to retrieve their funds, the episode involved zero communication—a major trust destroyer.

Another disgruntled client said, “Refusing to allow withdrawal of own deposited money. They put account on as inactive and when I contacted them they stated they require income verification from 5 years ago? Really?” Demanding decade-old documents is a classic tactic used by problematic brokerages to stall or deny withdrawals. This user’s experience suggests that ETX (OvalX) may weaponise its KYC procedures to trap client funds.

Even when withdrawals are eventually processed, the lack of transparency persists. Multiple reviewers noted they received no confirmation emails, leaving them anxious until the money appeared. In an industry where automated confirmations are standard, such omissions are hard to justify.

Beyond withdrawal delays, ETX appears to impose charges that catch traders off guard. One of the most cited is a £25 monthly dormancy fee, mentioned by a reviewer who said, “Here is a company happy to inform you when to take trades but when during coronavirus you stop trading they make no contact at all. Then when your account is dormant they take dormancy charge of £25 per month. And if you want to withdraw your money they still try to keep it!” This fee may be buried in the terms, but it clearly surprises many.

No official schedule of deposit, withdrawal, or inactivity fees is readily accessible on the broker’s website. Such opacity makes it nearly impossible for a trader to calculate the true cost of funding an account. FXCanary’s own attempt to locate a fee page yielded only scattered references in legal documents—never a clean, consumer-friendly summary.

Know‑Your‑Customer checks are a regulatory necessity, but at ETX they often morph into a tool for obstruction. Our review turned up 11 negative mentions about account and KYC processes against only 2 positive. The demand for five‑year‑old income verification, already cited, is just one example.

Another trader complained, “I have been with ETX Capital for a couple of months now, I currently have a position in Gold at a -100% loss, after this ETX had contacted me about closing my account, I asked what the reasoning was and the response I got was ‘I don't meet the requirements’.” While this case involves an account closure, it hints at arbitrary internal criteria that could easily be applied to withhold withdrawals.

When a broker can unilaterally deem you “non‑compliant” and freeze your funds, the burden of proof falls entirely on the client—often with no path to escalation except a lengthy formal complaint to the FCA, which itself has flagged the entity as a clone.

ETX’s FCA licence (number 124721) is genuine, but the regulator has a public note stating that this firm is a suspicious clone. In other words, Monecor (London) Limited may be impersonating a legitimate authorised firm. This should be a deal‑breaker for any trader considering moving large sums.

Clone firms typically have no real oversight, which explains why so many users feel abandoned when they try to withdraw. The FCA warning also means that the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme may not apply. If your funds disappear inside a clone operation, the usual safety nets are absent. FXCanary’s Scam Risk Score of 41/100 (Guarded) incorporates this red flag, and it directly influences our funding recommendations.

It would be unfair to ignore the positive feedback. Some long‑term clients insist they have never had a problem. One 4‑star reviewer praised “very quick withdrawal initiation, usually almost immediate.” Another highlighted their account manager’s role in smoothing the process: “Fantastic platform. Brilliant support from my account manager George. Excellent at processing withdrawals.”

These testimonials suggest that a minority of traders—often those with dedicated relationship managers and larger balances—receive preferential treatment. The average retail trader, however, appears to face a very different reality. The split between deposit‑positive and withdrawal‑negative experiences is a classic pattern associated with brokerages that prioritise collecting funds over returning them.

If you still choose to engage with ETX (OvalX), take these precautions:

• Verify the entity on the FCA Register yourself and read the clone warning. Do not rely on the broker’s website claims.
• Demand written confirmation of all deposit methods, withdrawal processing times, and any fees—including inactivity charges—before funding. If the answers are vague, walk away.
• Never deposit more than you can afford to lose. Start with the smallest possible amount and attempt a full withdrawal immediately to test the process.
• Keep records of every communication. If a request is ignored, file a formal complaint and escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service only after verifying you are dealing with the authorised firm (the clone note may complicate this).
• Consider using a payment method with chargeback rights, such as a credit card, as a last line of defence.

FXCanary’s in‑depth review of funding at ETX paints a picture of a broker with a high‑risk profile for money movement. The positive reviews are outnumbered by red flags—delays, hidden fees, aggressive verification demands, and a regulatory clone warning. Until these issues are publicly addressed and resolved, we advise traders to treat any deposit with extreme caution and to prioritise brokers with transparent, hassle‑free withdrawal track records.