Pro Markets Review

At FXCanary, our reviews are built on a foundation of thorough, independent research. For Pro Markets, we cross-checked regulatory registers in major and offshore jurisdictions, analyzed the real-user review record from multiple complaint platforms, and examined aggregated industry data. Our process also involved scrutinizing the broker’s own published materials—what little there is—to see how claims hold up against the lived experiences of traders.

We found that Pro Markets operates with no verifiable regulatory license, a fact that immediately places it in the high-risk category. The user reviews we collected paint a stark picture: most are negative, centering on topics like blocked withdrawals, unresponsive customer support, and outright scam allegations. We weighed these qualitative accounts against industry scores, including a low Trustpilot rating, to form a comprehensive view of the broker's trustworthiness.

Pro Markets was established in September 2020 and is listed with a country of registration as China, though some user reports also mention St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The company reports having zero employees, which in our experience is a strong indicator of a shell entity with no substantive operational team. A legitimate broker typically employs customer support, compliance, and dealing desk staff, so this figure alone raises serious doubts about Pro Markets' ability to deliver the services it advertises.

A look at the company’s history reveals no meaningful milestones or public-facing leadership. The website provides minimal corporate information, obscuring the identities of the people behind the operation. For a financial services firm that asks clients to deposit significant sums—in some cases €100,000 or more—this lack of transparency is deeply concerning. It suggests that clients are dealing with an opaque entity that offers no clear accountability.

Regulation is the primary safeguard for traders, ensuring that brokers adhere to standards such as capital adequacy, client fund segregation, and fair dealing. We searched the registers of all major regulators—including the FCA, CySEC, ASIC, and others—but found no trace of Pro Markets. The broker holds no license, period.

Operating without regulation means that client funds are not ring-fenced; in the event of insolvency, traders would be unlikely to recover their money. There is also no external ombudsman to handle disputes. The user complaints we reviewed—many involving blocked withdrawals and locked accounts—reflect this environment of impunity. When there is no regulatory threat, unscrupulous brokers can act without fear of enforcement.

We also checked offshore registries like the Financial Services Authority of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, where some questionable brokers seek a thin veneer of legitimacy. Pro Markets does not appear there either. The absence is complete, leaving clients with no safety net whatsoever.

Pro Markets offers five account tiers: Bronze (from €250), Silver (€5,000), Gold (€10,000), Platinum (€50,000), and Premium (€100,000). These minimum deposits are substantially higher than those of many regulated competitors, especially given the lack of any disclosed benefits. Typically, higher-tier accounts might offer tighter spreads, dedicated support, or advanced trading tools, but here the broker remains silent.

For a Bronze account holder risking €250, the opacity may be frustrating but not life-changing. For a Premium client depositing €100,000, the stakes are immense. Without knowing the spread structure, commission rates, or even the available leverage, a trader cannot perform basic cost analysis or risk management. This is a deliberate information void, and in our assessment, it serves to attract deposits while keeping clients in the dark about what they’re actually buying.

The complete lack of published deposit and withdrawal methods is a significant red flag. Traders reasonably expect to know whether they can fund accounts via bank wire, credit card, or e-wallet, and what the processing times and fees are. Pro Markets shares none of this, which is highly atypical for a legitimate broker.

User reviews reveal a consistent pattern: once funds are deposited, getting them back becomes a battle. We found multiple reports of withdrawal requests that remain pending for weeks or months, accounts being locked, and support simply ignoring inquiries. One user stated they deposited £700 only to have their account locked, with no way to withdraw and customer service non-existent. Another described a $10,000 balance that could not be moved, with no response from the broker.

These are not isolated incidents; they align with the five withdrawal-related complaints we counted across platforms. The evidence strongly suggests that Pro Markets operates with the intent of retaining client funds indefinitely.

Pro Markets does not specify which financial instruments it offers for trading. Whether it covers forex, CFDs, commodities, indices, or cryptocurrencies is anyone’s guess. In stark contrast, regulated brokers typically provide detailed asset lists, contract specifications, and trading hours. This omission makes meaningful comparison impossible and hints that the broker may not have the infrastructure to support even basic trading.

On the platform side, the broker is equally reticent. Several user reviews mention a platform, but no one names MetaTrader 4 or 5, the industry benchmarks. Some traders expressed a wish for MT4, implying that Pro Markets uses a different—possibly proprietary—system. However, without official confirmation, we cannot assess its stability, security, or feature set. A trading broker that won’t disclose its platform raises fundamental questions about what clients are actually interacting with.

Cost is a critical driver of net trading returns, yet Pro Markets reveals nothing about spreads, commissions, swap rates, or non-trading fees. Even the most basic Bronze account has no published spread or commission data. This is highly unusual; transparent brokers make their fee schedules readily available because they know traders depend on them for strategy development.

We can infer from the high minimum deposits that the broker expects to attract clients who may not be fee-sensitive, but that does not excuse the opacity. In the absence of disclosed pricing, we must assume that spreads could be wide and commissions high—a common tactic among unregulated brokers to extract maximum revenue from unsuspecting traders. The lack of deposit and withdrawal fee information further compounds the risk that clients may face hidden charges when they try to move money.

Our analysis of user reviews reveals a torrent of discontent. Of the 17 reviews we aggregated from Trustpilot, the vast majority are critical, yielding a 1.9/5 rating. The most recurrent theme is scam allegations: “Keep away from this company it’s all a scam,” one user wrote, while another claimed, “I lost a great deal of money here.” Even the infamous “positive” reviews carry warnings—a five-star review that reads, “Keep away from this company it’s all a scam,” is hardly an endorsement.

Withdrawal issues dominate the negative feedback. Multiple reviewers describe pending withdrawal requests that stretch for weeks with zero communication from support. One trader submitted a withdrawal request on February 20 and, by the time of their review days later, had received no response for a $10,000 balance. Another reported losing £700 and being locked out of the account entirely. These real-world accounts cement the picture of a broker that systematically blocks client exits.

Customer support receives especially harsh criticism. Phrases like “support centre, customer service doesn’t exist” and “do NOT go in business with this company” are common. When a broker combines unresponsive support with blocked withdrawals, the natural conclusion is that the operation is designed to frustrate and delay until clients give up. Some reviews even mention being directed to create new accounts under different business names, a classic sign of a scam network.

There are a handful of positive or mixed reviews, but they are so outnumbered that they may be fabricated or refer to a different entity. One user praised a sales manager named Dylan for selling farm equipment, which suggests confusion with another Pro Markets operating in a non-financial sector. Regardless, the weight of negative experiences is overwhelming and cannot be ignored.

Pro Markets’ 1.9/5 Trustpilot rating, based on 17 reviews, is among the lowest we’ve encountered for a broker. There is no Forex Peace Army score, which in itself is telling—most brokers, even controversial ones, gather some reviews there. The absence likely indicates that the broker has flown under the radar of that community or that users have gravitated elsewhere to complain.

These scores align closely with the tenor of the user reviews we collected. There is no notable divergence between the aggregated rating and the real-user narrative; both point resolutely toward a broker that should be avoided. The consistency of negative feedback across platforms reinforces the reliability of the overall signal.

We assign Pro Markets a Scam Risk Score of 75 out of 100, which falls into the ‘Severe’ category. This score reflects the cumulative weight of multiple red flags: zero regulatory licenses, a suspicious corporate structure with no employees, a complete lack of transparency on costs and platforms, and a user-review record dominated by scam accusations and withdrawal blockades.

A score of 75 means we believe there is a very high probability that traders who deposit funds with Pro Markets will lose their money or face insurmountable obstacles to recovering it. In our analysis, the broker exhibits the classic profile of a scam operation: minimal verifiable information, aggressive sales tactics (as reported), and a system purpose-built to retain deposits while avoiding accountability. Even the presence of a few positive reviews does little to mitigate the risk, given the sheer volume of credible complaints.

Based on our exhaustive review, FXCanary strongly advises against opening an account with Pro Markets. The broker operates without any regulatory oversight, fails to disclose basic information about its services, and has a documented history of ignoring withdrawal requests and locking client accounts.

If you are considering Pro Markets, we recommend you pause and reflect: no legitimate broker hides its fees, its platform, or its licensing status. The high minimum deposits are designed to extract as much capital as possible before the inevitable problems begin. Even if you have prior trading experience and are tempted by the account tiers, the risk of total loss is extreme.

For those already involved with Pro Markets and facing withdrawal difficulties, your options are limited without regulatory recourse. You may attempt to pressure the broker through public complaints, but our data suggests that such efforts rarely succeed. In the future, ensure any broker you use is authorized by a reputable regulator, and always check independent reviews before depositing. Pro Markets fails every test we apply, and we urge traders to look elsewhere for a safe and transparent trading environment.