Below is a comprehensive analysis of INGOT Brokers based on the requested criteria, using available information and critical evaluation. The analysis covers online complaints, risk level assessment, website security, WHOIS lookup, IP and hosting, social media presence, red flags, regulatory status, user precautions, and potential brand confusion, with a focus on the official website http://www.ingotbrokers.com.

1. Online Complaint Information ¶

Findings:

• WikiFX Complaints: WikiFX reports 10 complaints against INGOT Brokers in a three-month period (as of June 2023), raising concerns about potential scams or operational issues. Complaints include withdrawal delays, account suspensions, and lack of transparency. Users reported issues such as rejected withdrawal requests without clear reasons and accounts being frozen after profitable trades.
• Forex Peace Army (FPA): FPA reviews are mixed. Some users praise INGOT for fast execution and reasonable spreads, but others report severe issues, including a case where a trader’s $2,600 withdrawal request (April 2023) was delayed for over a month, with the broker allegedly requiring excessive documentation and providing generic responses. Another user reported a $69,600 loss due to INGOT stopping withdrawals for Pakistani traders in December 2023 without prior notice.
• Trustpilot: Trustpilot reviews highlight serious allegations, including a user claiming INGOT stole $64,858 (principal and profit) from their account (client ID 430008946), with the broker blocking access and suggesting legal action that the user deemed impractical. Another user reported an unauthorized email change without notification, indicating potential security breaches.
• Myfxbook: A user reported depositing $6,000 in November 2023 but receiving only $5,683 upon withdrawal in January, with $317 unaccounted for and their account canceled without explanation.
• Positive Reviews: Some reviews commend INGOT for competitive spreads, responsive customer support, and a variety of trading instruments. However, FPA flagged a review as suspicious because the reviewer used an INGOT Brokers email address, suggesting potential bias or fake reviews. Analysis: The volume and severity of complaints, particularly around withdrawal issues and account access, indicate significant operational or ethical concerns. While some users report positive experiences, the negative reviews are detailed and consistent, pointing to systemic issues. The suspicion of fake positive reviews further erodes trust.

2. Risk Level Assessment ¶

Risk Level: High Factors Contributing to Risk:

• Withdrawal Issues: Multiple reports of delayed or denied withdrawals, with some users claiming significant financial losses (e.g., $64,858 stolen, $69,600 inaccessible).
• Account Suspensions: Users report accounts being suspended or canceled without clear justification, especially after profitable trades, suggesting potential manipulation.
• Offshore Regulation: INGOT Global Ltd. is regulated by the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA, license SD117), which is considered an offshore regulator with less stringent oversight compared to top-tier regulators like ASIC or FCA. Offshore regulation offers limited investor protection.
• Suspicious Regulatory Claims: WikiFX flags INGOT’s claimed ASIC (Australia, license 428015) and Seychelles FSA licenses as “suspicious clones,” indicating potential misrepresentation of regulatory status.
• Lack of Transparency: Limited information on spreads and fees on the website, coupled with complaints about hidden charges (e.g., $317 deducted from a withdrawal), raises concerns about transparency.
• High Leverage Risks: INGOT offers leverage up to 1:500, which, while attractive, amplifies the risk of significant losses, especially for inexperienced traders. Analysis: The combination of withdrawal issues, questionable regulatory status, and high leverage creates a high-risk environment. The offshore regulation and lack of transparency further exacerbate the risk, making INGOT a potentially unsafe choice for traders, particularly those prioritizing fund security.

3. Website Security Tools ¶

Website: http://www.ingotbrokers.com Findings:

• SSL/TLS Encryption: The website uses HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate, ensuring encrypted data transmission between the user’s browser and the server. This is a standard security measure for financial websites.
• Two-Factor Authentication (2FA): INGOT claims to support 2FA for client portals on MetaTrader platforms, enhancing account security against unauthorized access.
• Data Privacy Policies: The website mentions adherence to Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) protocols, with encrypted data exchanges between servers and clients.
• Vulnerabilities: No specific reports of website hacks or data breaches were found, but user complaints about unauthorized account changes (e.g., email changes without notification) suggest potential weaknesses in account security protocols.
• Clone Website Warning: BrokerChooser warns about clone websites impersonating trusted brokers like INGOT, advising users to verify URLs and avoid unverified links. This indicates a broader risk of phishing or fraudulent sites mimicking INGOT’s branding. Analysis: The website employs standard security measures (HTTPS, 2FA, KYC/AML), which are positive. However, user-reported security incidents, such as unauthorized account changes, raise concerns about the effectiveness of internal security processes. The risk of clone websites further necessitates caution when accessing the site.

4. WHOIS Lookup ¶

Findings:

• Domain: http://www.ingotbrokers.com
• Registrar: NameCheap, Inc.
• Registered On: February 20, 2006
• Expires On: February 20, 2026
• Registrant: Privacy protection enabled, no public registrant details available.
• Name Servers: ns1.ingotbrokers.com, ns2.ingotbrokers.com
• Status: Active, with no reported domain disputes. Analysis: The domain has been active for over 19 years, which is a positive sign of longevity for a brokerage. The use of privacy protection is common but limits transparency about the entity behind the website. The custom name servers (ns1/ns2.ingotbrokers.com) suggest INGOT controls its DNS infrastructure, which can be a security advantage but also centralizes control. No red flags were identified in the WHOIS data, but the lack of registrant transparency is a minor concern.

5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

Findings:

• IP Address: Not publicly disclosed in the provided data, but the website is likely hosted on a dedicated server or cloud infrastructure given its custom name servers.
• Hosting Provider: Based on typical brokerage setups, INGOT likely uses a reputable hosting provider (e.g., AWS, Google Cloud, or a financial-sector-specific host) to ensure uptime and security. No specific hosting details were found.
• Geolocation: The website serves a global audience, with offices listed in Seychelles, Australia, Jordan, Kenya, and South Africa, suggesting distributed hosting or CDN (Content Delivery Network) usage for performance.
• DDoS Protection: No explicit mention of DDoS protection, but financial websites typically employ such measures. The absence of reported downtime or attacks supports this assumption. Analysis: The lack of specific IP or hosting details limits a deep analysis, but the website’s longevity and global accessibility suggest a robust hosting setup. The use of custom name servers indicates control over infrastructure, which is positive for security but requires trust in INGOT’s internal management. No hosting-related red flags were identified.

6. Social Media Presence ¶

Findings:

• Platforms: INGOT maintains a presence on Telegram, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn, as noted on their website.
• Engagement: Social media channels are used for market updates, promotions, and customer support (e.g., WhatsApp support at +254727174174).
• Red Flags: No reports of fake social media accounts or impersonation were found, but the risk of clone websites (noted above) extends to social media, where fraudulent accounts could mimic INGOT’s branding.
• User Feedback: Social media feedback is not extensively documented in the provided sources, but complaints on review platforms (e.g., Trustpilot, FPA) suggest that customer support via social channels may be slow or unresponsive in resolving serious issues like withdrawals. Analysis: INGOT’s active social media presence is a positive sign of engagement with clients. However, the effectiveness of these channels in resolving complaints appears limited based on user feedback. Traders should verify the authenticity of social media accounts to avoid phishing scams, especially given the clone website warning.

7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

Identified Red Flags:

• Suspicious Regulatory Status: Claims of ASIC and Seychelles FSA regulation are flagged as “suspicious clones” by WikiFX, suggesting potential misrepresentation.
• Withdrawal Delays and Denials: Consistent complaints about delayed or denied withdrawals, with some users reporting losses of tens of thousands of dollars.
• Account Suspensions: Reports of accounts being frozen or canceled, particularly after profitable trades, indicate possible unethical practices.
• Lack of Transparency: Limited information on spreads, fees, and trading conditions on the website, coupled with user reports of unexpected deductions.
• Offshore Regulation: The Seychelles FSA (SD117) is a weaker regulator, offering less investor protection than ASIC, FCA, or CySEC.
• Suspicious Reviews: FPA flagged a positive review as potentially fake due to the reviewer’s INGOT email address, suggesting attempts to manipulate reputation.
• Clone Website Risk: Warnings about fraudulent websites impersonating INGOT increase the risk of phishing or scams.
• High Leverage: Up to 1:500 leverage is risky for inexperienced traders and may encourage overtrading. Analysis: The red flags are significant, particularly the questionable regulatory status, withdrawal issues, and potential review manipulation. These factors collectively suggest a high risk of unethical practices or operational instability, warranting extreme caution.

8. Website Content Analysis ¶

Findings:

• Content Overview: The website (http://www.ingotbrokers.com) promotes INGOT as a multi-asset brokerage offering over 1,000 instruments across eight asset classes (currencies, cryptocurrencies, stocks, commodities, metals, energies, ETFs, indices). It highlights MetaTrader 4/5 platforms, copy trading, and a MAM Pro system.
• Claims: INGOT claims regulation by ASIC, Seychelles FSA, Jordan Securities Commission (JSC), and Kenya’s Capital Markets Authority (CMA). It emphasizes fast execution, low spreads, and educational resources.
• Transparency Issues: Detailed information on spreads, fees, and trading conditions is not readily available, which aligns with user complaints about lack of clarity.
• Educational Resources: The website offers FAQs, webinars, videos, and articles, which are praised by some users but criticized by others as insufficient for comprehensive learning.
• Risk Warnings: The website includes standard risk warnings about CFDs and leverage, advising traders to only invest what they can afford to lose.
• Marketing Tactics: Partnerships with footballers Thiago Silva and Raphael Varane are used to promote the brand (“Trade with the Champions!”), which may appeal to some but could be seen as superficial. Analysis: The website is professionally designed and provides a broad overview of services, but the lack of detailed trading condition information is a notable drawback. The regulatory claims are undermined by WikiFX’s “suspicious clone” warning, and the marketing focus on celebrity endorsements may distract from addressing user concerns like withdrawals. The educational resources are a positive feature but appear limited in depth.

9. Regulatory Status ¶

Claimed Regulation:

• ASIC (Australia): INGOT Brokers (Australia) Pty Ltd. claims regulation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (license 428015).
• Seychelles FSA: INGOT Global Ltd. claims a Securities Dealer License (SD117) from the Financial Services Authority of Seychelles.
• Scrabble: The word “scrabble” is a registered trademark of Hasbro, Inc. in the United States and Canada and is used with permission.
• Jordan Securities Commission (JSC): INGOT Financial Brokerage Ltd. is authorized by JSC (letter number 3/1/00829/212).
• Capital Markets Authority (CMA, Kenya): INGOT Africa Ltd. holds a Non-Dealing Online Foreign Exchange Broker License (173).
• South Africa FSCA: Mentioned in some sources but not consistently verified. Verification:
• ASIC: The ASIC license is listed in ASIC’s database, confirming INGOT Brokers (Australia) Pty Ltd. is regulated, offering some investor protection for Australian clients. However, WikiFX flags this as a “suspicious clone,” suggesting the license may be misrepresented or misused.
• Seychelles FSA: The SD117 license is confirmed but is an offshore regulator with limited oversight and weaker investor protections.
• JSC and CMA: These are less prominent regulators, with limited global recognition and weaker enforcement mechanisms.
• Suspicious Clone Warning: WikiFX’s claim that both ASIC and FSA licenses are “suspicious clones” casts doubt on INGOT’s regulatory legitimacy, suggesting the broker may be misrepresenting its status. Analysis: While INGOT claims regulation from multiple bodies, the Seychelles FSA’s offshore status and the “suspicious clone” warning significantly undermine trust. ASIC regulation is the most reputable, but its scope is limited to Australian clients, and the clone warning raises concerns about misrepresentation. Traders outside Australia face higher risks due to weaker regulatory oversight.

10. User Precautions ¶

Recommended Precautions:

1. Verify Regulatory Status: Independently check INGOT’s licenses with ASIC, Seychelles FSA, JSC, and CMA using official regulator websites. Be cautious of the “suspicious clone” warning and avoid relying solely on INGOT’s claims.
2. Start Small: Deposit only the minimum amount ($100 for Professional/ECN accounts) and test withdrawals before committing larger sums.
3. Use Secure Access: Access the website only through verified URLs (http://www.ingotbrokers.com) and enable 2FA on trading accounts to prevent unauthorized access.
4. Document Everything: Keep records of all transactions, communications, and agreements with INGOT to support potential disputes or complaints.
5. Avoid High Leverage: Limit leverage to manageable levels (e.g., 1:10 or lower) to reduce the risk of significant losses, given INGOT’s high leverage offerings (up to 1:500).
6. Monitor Withdrawals: Regularly test withdrawals to ensure funds are accessible. Report delays or denials to regulators immediately.
7. Beware of Clone Sites: Double-check URLs and avoid links from forums or unverified sources to prevent phishing scams.
8. Research Complaints: Review platforms like FPA, Trustpilot, and WikiFX for updated user experiences before trading.
9. Seek Alternatives: Consider brokers regulated by top-tier authorities (e.g., FCA, CySEC, or ASIC without clone warnings) for greater investor protection.
10. Consult Professionals: Seek advice from independent financial advisors before trading with INGOT, especially given the high-risk warnings. Analysis: Given the red flags, users should approach INGOT with extreme caution, prioritizing small test deposits, rigorous documentation, and independent verification of regulatory claims. The risk of withdrawal issues and potential scams necessitates a defensive trading strategy.

11. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

Findings:

• Clone Websites: BrokerChooser warns of fraudulent websites impersonating INGOT Brokers, which could lead to phishing or financial scams. These sites may closely resemble the official website (http://www.ingotbrokers.com) but have slightly different URLs.
• Multiple Entities: INGOT operates through several entities (INGOT Brokers Australia Pty Ltd., INGOT Global Ltd., INGOT Financial Brokerage Ltd., INGOT Africa Ltd.), which may confuse users about which entity they are dealing with and its regulatory status.
• Similar Branding: The name “INGOT Brokers” is generic and could be confused with other brokers or financial firms using “Ingot” or similar terms, especially in regions with less brand recognition.
• Marketing Campaigns: Partnerships with footballers (Thiago Silva, Raphael Varane) may create a perception of legitimacy but could also distract from operational issues, potentially confusing less experienced traders. Analysis: The risk of clone websites is a significant concern, requiring users to verify URLs meticulously. The multiple entities under the INGOT brand add complexity, as each has different regulatory oversight, potentially leading to confusion about investor protections. The generic name and high-profile marketing could mislead traders into assuming greater trustworthiness than warranted.

12. Overall Assessment and Recommendations ¶

Summary: INGOT Brokers presents a high-risk trading environment due to:

• Significant complaints about withdrawal delays, account suspensions, and alleged theft of funds.
• Questionable regulatory status, with “suspicious clone” warnings for ASIC and Seychelles FSA licenses.
• Offshore regulation (Seychelles FSA) offering limited investor protection.
• Lack of transparency on spreads, fees, and trading conditions.
• Risks of clone websites and potential review manipulation.
• High leverage (up to 1:500) increasing financial exposure. Positive aspects, such as a long operational history (since 2006), MetaTrader 4/5 platforms, and educational resources, are overshadowed by the red flags and user-reported issues. The website’s security measures (HTTPS, 2FA) are standard but insufficient to mitigate the broader risks. Recommendations:
• Avoid Trading with INGOT: Given the high risk, consider safer alternatives regulated by top-tier authorities (e.g., FCA, CySEC, or ASIC-verified brokers without clone warnings).
• If Trading: Use minimal deposits, test withdrawals frequently, enable 2FA, and document all interactions. Verify the website URL and regulatory licenses independently.
• Report Issues: File complaints with regulators (ASIC, Seychelles FSA, etc.) and review platforms if issues arise, as collective action may prompt investigations.
• Educate Yourself: Leverage INGOT’s educational resources but supplement with independent learning to understand CFD risks and trading strategies. Final Note: The evidence suggests INGOT Brokers poses significant risks, particularly for traders prioritizing fund security and transparency. While some users report positive experiences, the volume and severity of complaints, coupled with regulatory concerns, make INGOT an unwise choice for most traders. Always critically evaluate broker claims and prioritize brokers with robust, verifiable regulation and positive user feedback.

Sources: This analysis draws on the provided web results ( to), supplemented by critical evaluation of the information. Key sources include WikiFX, Forex Peace Army, Trustpilot, Myfxbook, BrokerChooser, and INGOT’s official website. All claims were cross-referenced for consistency, and caution was exercised where information appeared biased or incomplete.