Investing24.com Review

FXCanary’s editorial team approached this broker with a structured review methodology. We cross‑checked the broker’s regulatory claims against official CySEC registers, examining licence validity, authorisation scope and any disciplinary history. We scoured multiple real‑review platforms, aggregating user sentiment across nearly 50 individual reviews covering everything from platform performance to withdrawal experiences. Finally, we weighed these findings against aggregated industry data and our internal risk‑assessment model to arrive at a balanced, evidence‑backed verdict.

This review is not a simple retelling of the broker’s marketing; it is a rigorous investigation grounded in documentary evidence and the lived experiences of traders who have used the service. Our goal is to give you a clear, unvarnished picture of what to expect.

A core red flag surfaces the moment you dig into Investing24’s corporate details. The broker’s website claims a history stretching back to 2005, but the legal entity behind the brand, FXNET Limited, was incorporated on 28 September 2023. This means the company is barely two months old at the time of our research. The registered address is 4 Theklas Lysioti St, Harmony House Office 31, 3rd Floor, 3030 Limassol, Cyprus—a location that is legitimate but also shared by numerous other forex firms.

Even more striking is the employee count: zero. For a broker that promotes personal account managers, educational courses and tailored strategies, having no registered employees is deeply inconsistent. While it is possible that the firm outsources its sales and support functions, this lack of transparency on a basic corporate fact is a serious warning sign.

Investing24 operates under CySEC licence number 182/12, which is a Derivatives Trading (Market Maker) licence. CySEC, as a European Union regulator, enforces certain safeguards: client‑fund segregation, capital adequacy standards and membership of the Investor Compensation Fund (ICF) that covers up to €20,000 per client should the broker fail. These are essential protections, and the licence itself is genuine.

However, holding a CySEC licence does not automatically make a broker trustworthy. As an EU‑based market maker, the broker trades against its own clients, creating a direct conflict of interest: it profits when you lose. Furthermore, CySEC has historically been criticised for lax enforcement and long delays in acting on complaints. The licence gives a framework, but it is the broker’s conduct within that framework that matters—and the user record here is deeply troubling.

Details on account types, spreads and leverage are conspicuously absent from the broker’s website. What is disclosed is a minimum deposit of $500—a figure that is neither high nor suspiciously low, but rather standard for a CySEC broker targeting retail traders. Beyond that, everything seems to be determined during a phone consultation with a sales agent.

This level of opacity is problematic. Legitimate brokers publish their trading conditions openly so that traders can compare costs and make informed decisions. When a broker hides these details, it often means they will be tailored to each client’s perceived willingness to pay, with spreads and commissions likely quote by quote.

Funding methods are not disclosed anywhere in the broker’s materials, which is a critical oversight. Even more concerning is the user‑reported withdrawal picture. Across multiple review sites, we count at least three explicit complaints of withdrawal failures—and many more that mention delays, blocked accounts and difficulty accessing funds.

Positive withdrawal stories are rare. The few clients who did get their money out note that it took days longer than expected and required persistent follow‑up. In the worst cases, traders claim they were never able to withdraw any part of their investment. When a broker makes it easy to deposit but hard to withdraw, the operational model leans toward retention of client funds rather than fair dealing.

The broker lists Forex, metals, commodities, crypto CFDs, indices and shares as available instruments. This is a competitive range, but the lack of a detailed product specification or contract sizes makes it impossible to assess the true trading environment. The platform itself, according to user descriptions, is a web‑based proprietary system that some have called “unprofessional” and “like a quick setup.”

There is no evidence of MetaTrader 4 or 5 integration, nor any third‑party analytical tools. For traders accustomed to robust charting, automated trading and transparent order execution, this platform is likely to fall short. The dated look and potential lack of advanced features may discourage experienced traders.

Because spreads are not published, it is impossible to provide a definitive cost comparison. One reviewer explicitly blames the broker for causing heavy losses due to hidden costs, implying that the real spreads are significantly worse than industry norms. As a market maker, the broker has full control over the pricing they offer, and without transparent disclosure, clients are essentially trading blind.

We found no mention of commission structures, overnight swap rates, or inactivity fees. The absence of clear cost information is a major obstacle for any principled trader trying to gauge the broker’s competitiveness. In practice, users pay whatever spread the broker decides to set at the time of execution, with no fixed benchmark.

We analysed all available reviews across multiple platforms, categorising them by topic. Scam concerns dominate, with every single entry in that category calling the broker an outright scam. Expressions like “complete scam,” “obvious telephone scam,” and “do not engage with them” are typical. The pattern is consistent: unsolicited cold calls, promises of education that morph into high‑pressure sales, and then an inability to withdraw funds.

Trust and reliability scores show a similar split—three users are satisfied, but six describe harassment, constant phone calls and deceptive marketing. Even the positive comments often come with caveats: a user may be happy with a 40% profit but simultaneously frustrated that withdrawals take too long. This blend of lukewarm praise and sharp criticism suggests that the few satisfied clients are either in very early stages or have not yet faced a withdrawal request.

Platform reviews are equally damning: seven out of ten are negative, pointing to an unprofessional interface and a sales‑first mindset. Customer support is a double‑edged sword: it is praised for being available, yet the same availability is weaponised to make dozens of follow‑up calls after a client declines, crossing into harassment. When you weigh the three withdrawal‑related complaints alongside the eight scam accusations, a pattern emerges of a broker that collects deposits but resists paying out.

The broker holds a Trustpilot score of 1.7 from 25 reviews, which is extremely low and aligns with the overwhelmingly negative sentiment we observed. Other aggregator sources, though not directly cited here, also indicate a high‑risk profile. Our own Scam Risk Score of 44 out of 100 places Investing24 in the “Guarded” category—not the absolute bottom tier, but still carrying significant risk.

However, the gulf between a 44 and the tone of the reviews is substantial. Our model factors in items like regulation and clone‑site presence, which pulled the score upward, but the qualitative evidence of systematic withdrawal obstruction and aggressive marketing makes the broker feel more dangerous than the number suggests. We flag this for readers: the aggregated score benefits from the CySEC licence, but the real‑world horror stories cannot be ignored.

Investing24 presents a dangerous contradiction: a fresh company with a made‑up history, a real CySEC licence that provides a veneer of legitimacy, and an onslaught of user reviews alleging scamming, cold calling and non‑payment of withdrawals. Our investigation uncovered no redeeming qualities that would make this broker a safe choice for any retail trader. The handful of positive reviews do not outweigh the cascade of complaints.

If you are considering this broker, our advice is unequivocal: do not deposit funds. The aggressive sales tactics, undisclosed costs and repeated reports of withdrawal failures are hallmarks of a high‑risk operation. Even if the CySEC licence offers theoretical compensation, the ICF only kicks in upon insolvency, not in cases of fraud or unfair trading practices. For those who have already deposited, we recommend immediately attempting a full withdrawal and ceasing all communication. Document everything and, if necessary, file a complaint with CySEC or your local financial ombudsman.