Is ETX a Scam?

At FXCanary, our safety assessments rest on a rigorous, evidence-based framework that goes beyond surface-level marketing claims. We assign a Scam Risk Score on a scale of 0 (lowest risk) to 100 (highest risk), synthesising dozens of data points: regulatory licences, user complaint patterns, corporate transparency, and independent industry alerts. Each broker’s score reflects real-world risk, not just theory, and a result above 60 would signal an immediate ‘High Risk’ warning.

For ETX (now operating as Oval X), our research yields a Scam Risk Score of 41/100—categorised as ‘Guarded’. This places the broker in a twilight zone where strong regulatory credentials are undermined by contradictory evidence, including a suspicious clone designation in the company’s own description and a troubling volume of withdrawal-related grievances. We don’t issue a verdict lightly; every point is backed by cross-checked public registers, aggregated industry data, and the lived experiences of traders whose reviews we have catalogued.

The following deep-dive dissects exactly what builds—and tempers—that 41-point score. We examine the FCA licence that should inspire confidence, the clone warning that shatters it, the withdrawal nightmares recounted in user forums, and the practical steps any trader must take before risking capital with this entity.

The broker’s legal name, Monecor (London) Limited, appears on the UK Financial Conduct Authority register under licence number 124721. At first glance, this is a gold-standard regulator: the FCA mandates strict client-fund segregation, requires negative balance protection for retail traders, and offers coverage under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) up to £85,000 per claimant. A trader seeing this licence on the firm’s website would reasonably assume their money is ring-fenced and protected.

However, our investigation uncovered a jarring detail in the broker’s own corporate records. The company description explicitly states that Oval X is “a suspicious clone”. This is not a minor footnote; it indicates that the entity presenting itself as Monecor (London) Limited may be impersonating a legitimate FCA-authorised firm. If true, the regulatory protections evaporate—the clone is not the regulated entity, so FSCS coverage, segregation, and recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service would not apply. The zero-employee count we observed in structured data reinforces the ghost-company profile typical of clone operations.

We cross-referenced the FCA register and found no current public warnings about this specific licence number, but the internal flag is alarming. It suggests that the broker’s own back-end data or a third-party compliance check has identified a mismatch between the trading brand and the authorised firm. Traders must treat this as a critical red flag: a clone may operate for months, collecting deposits, before vanishing or blocking withdrawals with impunity.

Clone fraud is one of the most insidious threats in retail forex. Criminals copy the name, registration details, and website of a legitimate FCA firm, then lure unsuspecting clients. Because the licence appears real, due-diligence tools often give a false sense of security. The structured data we analysed found zero impersonator sites currently active, but that doesn’t cancel the internal clone designation—it may mean the clone has not yet spawned additional domains or that authorities haven’t issued public alerts.

In the case of ETX/Oval X, the historical branding adds another layer of complexity. The broker was previously known as ETX Capital and underwent a rebranding to Oval X. Such transitions are sometimes used to distance a clone from its past misdeeds. While rebranding itself isn’t illegal, when paired with a ‘suspicious clone’ tag, it raises serious doubts about the continuity of the regulated entity. Traders should always verify the firm’s contact details against the FCA register and call the phone number listed on the official register—not the one on the broker’s site—before engaging.

Furthermore, we note that the broker’s Trustpilot page shows a 4.5/5 rating from 265 reviews, which might foster misplaced trust. But cloners often manipulate reviews or pay for fake positive feedback. The presence of 28 withdrawal-related complaints in our repository, despite that high rating, suggests a pattern that outlasts any Review-page gloss. A clone rarely maintains genuine five-star service; eventually, the cracks show.

Our repository of real user reviews on withdrawals paints a stark picture. Of the 22 withdrawal-specific mentions we catalogued, 13 were negative—a 59% dissatisfaction rate that contradicts the broker’s image of prompt service. Several traders reported absolute denial of access to their own deposited funds.

One review stated: “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?” Such demands are not standard KYC but appear designed to frustrate withdrawals.

Another trader experienced a complete communication blackout: “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 this user later edited to say they eventually recovered funds, the lack of confirmation emails and prolonged silence are red flags for liquidity or operational dysfunction—or worse, intentional delay tactics. A dormancy charge of £25 per month further compounds the pain, as one review exposed: “when your account is dormant they take dormancy charge of £25 per month. And if you want to withdraw you have to pay.”

Positive withdrawal reviews are not absent; eight traders praised quick processing and supportive account managers. However, the cluster of severe negative experiences, especially those involving complete refusal, suggests a two-tier reality: some clients sail through while others hit brick walls. For a regulated broker, such inconsistency is unacceptable and points to either ad-hoc compliance or selective scamming.

Beyond the clone suspicion, our structured data reveals a firm with zero employees on file. While some legitimate brokerages operate with lean remote teams, a null figure, especially for a London-based FCA entity, is deeply unusual and consistent with a sham operation. It implies there may be no actual staff handling compliance, client funds, or dispute resolution—just a website and payment-processing funnel.

User reviews amplify the concern with allegations of platform manipulation. One trader described a stop-loss being automatically placed 14 points away on UK100, virtually guaranteeing a loss. Another complained that the broker “induce plugins to delay costumers orders 4 to 6 seconds” and called for an FCA review. Data-feed reliability was also attacked: “high level data feed issues means they close markets to trade on at important times which leave you having to phone to trade, and they dont have the staff to manage that.” Such control over trading conditions is typical of a market-making desk with conflicting interests.

Account and KYC issues further darken the picture. Out of 13 mentions, 11 were negative. Traders reported unexplained account closures, with one being told “I don't meet their criteria” while sitting on a -100% loss in gold. Another was locked out for “income verification from 5 years ago.” These stories suggest a business model that welcomes deposits but obstructs payouts, eroding trust far more than any five-star rating can repair.

To be balanced, we must acknowledge the evidence that prevented a higher risk score. The broker’s Trustpilot page, while possibly tainted, still shows a majority of positive reviews. Many long-term clients—one a five-year user—praise the platform’s ease of use, the “excellent training videos,” and the personalised support from account managers like Stephen O’Sullivan. These are not off-the-shelf testimonials; they reference specific features like smaller position sizes (0.01 lots) that appeal to beginners.

Customer support garners 87 positive mentions out of 97, with traders appreciating weekly check-in calls and market briefings. The speed of execution, for a group of users, is reliable: “trades are executed in a very fast time,” and the platform is “very responsive.” For some, withdrawals do work smoothly—“very quick to initiate withdrawals when I order them (usually almost immediate).” These experiences cannot be dismissed; they may represent the authentic operations of the real Monecor entity, if the clone isn’t universal.

Moreover, the FCA licence, even if cloned, was historically valid for a genuine firm. The broker’s long history (founded 2017) and London Stock Exchange membership add a veneer of legitimacy. These factors, weighed against the severe withdrawal and clone flags, keep the scam risk score in the ‘Guarded’ range rather than plunging into high-risk territory. But they are not a safe harbour.

Given the clone designation, the absolute first step is independent verification. Do not rely on the FCA registration number printed on the broker’s website—go directly to the FCA Register (register.fca.org.uk) and search for firm reference number 124721. Check the registered address (26 Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1DS) and, crucially, the contact details: email domains and telephone numbers. Call the number on the FCA register and ask to speak with compliance about the suspicious clone tag. If the firm cannot explain it or the person you reach seems unconnected to the trading platform, walk away.

Test withdrawals early and in small amounts. Do not fund a large account until you have successfully withdrawn a nominal sum back to your original deposit method. Pay close attention to any unexpected requests for ancient income verification or sudden account inactivity flags. Keep a detailed record of all communications and screenshots of your trading conditions; these will be vital if you need to complain to the FCA or Financial Ombudsman.

Finally, watch for platform irregularities. If you notice data feeds freezing during volatility, stops being added without your input, or execution delays of several seconds, treat them as confirmation that the dealing desk is prioritising the house over the client. In such cases, liquidate positions and withdraw remaining funds immediately. If withdrawal is blocked, file a complaint with the FCA and consider an FSCS claim—though if this is a clone, you may need to pursue alternative recovery routes, as the compensation scheme only covers clients of the authorised firm, not its impersonators. Vigilance is your only reliable shield.