Below is a comprehensive analysis of Capital Markets Elite Group (UK) Limited, based on the provided criteria, using available information and critical evaluation. The official website is https://www.cmelitegroup.co.uk/, and the analysis covers online complaints, risk assessment, website security, WHOIS lookup, IP and hosting, social media, red flags, regulatory status, user precautions, brand confusion, and website content.

1. Online Complaint Information ¶

Sources: Trustpilot reviews for www.cmelitegroup.co.uk and www.cmelitegroup.com.

• Trustpilot Ratings:

• www.cmelitegroup.co.uk: Limited reviews (2 reviews as of 2023), insufficient to establish a clear TrustScore. This lack of reviews raises concerns about user engagement or transparency for the UK entity.

• www.cmelitegroup.com: 4-star rating based on 292–298 reviews as of March 2025. Positive feedback highlights platform stability, fast executions, and responsive customer service. Users praise tools like CAP it ALL and hotkey functionality, which save costs compared to competitors like Sterling.

• Specific Complaints:

• Onboarding Issues: A significant complaint from January 2025 describes a user’s account being closed after submitting extensive personal documents (e.g., Social Security number, driver’s license, bank details). The user alleges excessive data requests and unresponsiveness, with the firm hanging up or not answering calls. This suggests potential issues with KYC/AML (Know Your Customer/Anti-Money Laundering) processes or customer service.

• Withdrawal Delays: Some users report delays in withdrawals, though others note improvements, with processing times now within stated terms. One user speculates that delays may result from compliance flags, which firms cannot disclose.

• Technical Issues: Complaints about platform glitches or technical problems exist, but the firm reportedly addresses these with corrective actions.

• Positive Feedback:

• Users commend the platform’s speed, mobile-friendly tools, and customer service responsiveness, with some issues resolved faster than promised. A user with banking experience defends the firm, suggesting withdrawal delays may reflect standard compliance checks.

• Analysis:

• The UK entity (cmelitegroup.co.uk) has minimal reviews, which could indicate low market penetration or a newer operation, raising caution for users seeking established brokers. The .com entity has more robust feedback but mixed experiences, with serious complaints about data handling and account closures warranting scrutiny. Positive reviews suggest reliability for some, but negative experiences highlight potential risks in onboarding and withdrawals.

2. Risk Level Assessment ¶

• Financial Risk:
• The website warns that 92% of retail investor accounts lose money due to leverage, indicating high risk for leveraged products like CFDs and forex. Trading in volatile markets (e.g., forex with up to 200:1 leverage) amplifies potential losses.
• Extended-hours trading risks include lower liquidity, higher volatility, wider spreads, and unlinked markets, which could lead to inferior pricing or partial order execution.
• Operational Risk:
• Complaints about account closures and unresponsiveness suggest operational or compliance issues. The firm’s reliance on offshore entities (Cayman Islands, Trinidad and Tobago) for some operations may increase risk due to looser regulations.
• The lack of U.S. registration means U.S. clients lack protections from FINRA, SEC, or SIPC, increasing risk for U.S.-based traders.
• Reputation Risk:
• Mixed reviews and serious allegations of data mishandling harm credibility. The low Trustpilot review count for the UK site contrasts with the .com site’s higher engagement, suggesting potential inconsistencies across entities.
• Risk Level: Moderate to High
• High financial risk due to leverage and market volatility, moderate operational risk from onboarding and withdrawal issues, and elevated reputation risk from mixed reviews and offshore affiliations. Users with small accounts or seeking U.S. protections face higher risks.

3. Website Security Tools ¶

• SSL/TLS Encryption:

• The website (https://www.cmelitegroup.co.uk/) uses HTTPS, indicating SSL/TLS encryption, a standard for securing data transmission. No specific certificate details (e.g., issuer, expiry) are provided in the sources, but HTTPS is confirmed.

• Privacy Policy:

• The privacy policy emphasizes data confidentiality, using advanced encryption and security measures for the CAP it ALL platform. Personal data (e.g., Social Security number, passport) is collected with explicit consent and shared with third parties only for necessary services (e.g., vendors, affiliates).

• Users can limit data sharing via third-party privacy settings (e.g., social media), and disputes over data use are resolved through arbitration.

• Security Features:

• The platform requires users to secure their devices with virus-checking software and maintain confidential login details. The firm may suspend or block access if security is compromised, indicating proactive measures.

• No mention of two-factor authentication (2FA) or specific cybersecurity tools (e.g., firewalls, intrusion detection) is found, which is a potential gap.

• Analysis:

• Basic security measures (HTTPS, encryption) are in place, and the privacy policy is detailed, but the lack of specifics on advanced tools like 2FA or penetration testing raises concerns. Complaints about data handling suggest potential vulnerabilities in practice.

4. WHOIS Lookup ¶

• Domain: cmelitegroup.co.uk
• Registrar: Not explicitly stated in sources, but WHOIS data typically includes registrar, registration date, and registrant details unless privacy protection is enabled.
• Registrant: Likely Capital Markets Elite Group (UK) Limited, registered under UK laws (company number 07832612) at 107 Cannon Street, 3rd Floor, London EC4N 5AF.
• Registration Date: Unknown from sources, but the company was incorporated in 2011 (based on company number).
• Privacy Protection: No indication of WHOIS privacy protection, as the registered office is publicly listed. However, a WHOIS lookup would confirm if personal details are redacted.
• Analysis:
• The domain aligns with the UK entity’s legal registration, suggesting legitimacy. However, users should verify WHOIS data independently to confirm no discrepancies (e.g., mismatched registrants or recent domain changes). The lack of specific WHOIS details in sources limits conclusions.

5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

• Hosting Provider: Not specified in sources. Typically, financial websites use reputable providers (e.g., AWS, Cloudflare) for uptime and security, but no data confirms this.
• IP Address: Unknown from sources. A reverse IP lookup could reveal shared hosting or suspicious co-hosted domains, but this requires external tools.
• Geolocation: Likely hosted in the UK or EU, given the .co.uk domain and FCA regulation, but no confirmation.
• Security: The privacy policy mentions third-party services like Google Analytics for log data, suggesting cloud-based infrastructure. No mention of dedicated servers or DDoS protection.
• Analysis:
• Without specific IP or hosting data, assumptions are limited. The use of third-party analytics suggests reliance on external infrastructure, which could introduce vulnerabilities if not properly secured. Users should check for Content Delivery Network (CDN) usage or hosting reputation via tools like SecurityTrails or VirusTotal.

6. Social Media Presence ¶

• Integration:
• The privacy policy mentions integration with social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Google) for sharing user interests and opinions, indicating an active social commerce strategy.
• No specific social media accounts (e.g., Twitter, LinkedIn) are listed in sources, limiting visibility into their social presence.
• Engagement:
• The firm encourages users to connect via social media, but no evidence of follower count, post frequency, or engagement metrics is provided. This lack of transparency raises questions about their social media strategy.
• Red Flags:
• Unverified or inactive social media accounts could indicate low credibility. The absence of mentioned accounts in sources suggests either minimal presence or deliberate omission.
• Analysis:
• Limited information on social media presence is a concern, as reputable brokers typically maintain active, verifiable accounts. Users should search for official accounts and verify their authenticity (e.g., check for blue ticks, consistent branding). The integration with social platforms is standard but requires users to manage privacy settings carefully.

7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

• Regulatory Concerns:
• The UK entity is FCA-regulated (FRN 583632), which is a strong positive. However, affiliated entities in the Cayman Islands (CIMA, License 1671530) and Trinidad and Tobago (TTSEC) operate under looser regulations, with WikiFX rating the Cayman entity poorly (1.40/10) due to offshore risks.
• The firm exceeds its CIMA license scope and holds a non-forex NFA license, increasing risk for forex traders.
• U.S. Restrictions:
• Not registered as a U.S. broker-dealer, meaning U.S. clients lack FINRA/SEC protections. U.S. persons must certify they weren’t solicited, adding complexity and risk.
• Complaints:
• Allegations of excessive data collection and account closures without explanation are serious, suggesting potential data misuse or compliance overreach.
• Transparency:
• Limited reviews for the UK site and vague details on fees (e.g., ECN/routing fees not included in commissions) reduce transparency.
• No 1099-B tax forms for U.S. clients; instead, account summaries are provided, complicating tax reporting.
• Offshore Operations:
• Affiliations with Cayman and Trinidad entities raise concerns, as offshore jurisdictions often have weaker oversight, increasing fraud or insolvency risks.
• Analysis:
• Red flags include offshore affiliations, U.S. regulatory gaps, data handling complaints, and limited UK reviews. While FCA regulation mitigates some risks, the offshore entities and operational issues are significant concerns.

8. Regulatory Status ¶

• UK Entity:
• Authorised and Regulated: Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), FRN 583632. Registered under UK laws (company number 07832612) at 107 Cannon Street, London EC4N 5AF.
• FCA regulation ensures adherence to strict standards, including client fund segregation and transparency, but users should verify status on the FCA register (register.fca.org.uk).
• Cayman Islands Entity:
• Regulated by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA, License 1671530) under the Securities Investment Business Law (2015).
• WikiFX notes the license exceeds its scope, and CIMA’s loose oversight reduces credibility.
• Trinidad and Tobago Entity:
• Regulated by the Trinidad and Tobago Securities and Exchange Commission (TTSEC) as a broker-dealer and investment advisor.
• Offshore regulation is less stringent, posing risks for clients relying on this entity.
• U.S. Compliance:
• FATCA-compliant, reporting U.S. clients’ assets to the IRS, but not registered with FINRA, SEC, or SIPC, limiting U.S. protections.
• Analysis:
• FCA regulation is a strong positive for the UK entity, but offshore entities dilute trust. Users should confirm FCA status and be cautious of Cayman/Trinidad operations, especially for forex or high-leverage trading.

9. User Precautions ¶

• Due Diligence:
• Verify FCA registration (FRN 583632) on the FCA website (register.fca.org.uk).
• Research the firm’s offshore entities and understand their regulatory limitations.
• Consult independent financial, legal, and tax advisors before trading, especially for leveraged products.
• Data Protection:
• Limit data sharing on social media platforms integrated with the site.
• Secure devices with antivirus software and use strong, unique passwords.
• Monitor account activity and report suspicious data requests immediately.
• Trading Precautions:
• Start with a small deposit to test withdrawal processes, given complaints about delays.
• Avoid high-leverage products (e.g., 200:1 forex) unless experienced, due to the 92% loss rate.
• Understand tax implications, especially for U.S. clients, as no 1099-B is provided.
• Customer Service:
• Contact support via official channels ([email protected], +44 0203 854 0041) and document all correspondence.
• Be prepared for delays in onboarding due to KYC/AML checks.
• Analysis:
• Users must exercise caution, particularly with data submission and high-risk trading. Verifying regulatory status and testing the platform with minimal funds are critical steps.

10. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

• Multiple Entities:
• The firm operates under multiple entities: Capital Markets Elite Group (UK) Limited, Capital Markets Elite Group (Cayman), and Capital Markets Elite Group (Trinidad and Tobago). The websites cmelitegroup.co.uk and cmelitegroup.com may confuse users, as reviews for .com dominate but may not apply to the UK entity.
• The UK site emphasizes FCA regulation, while the .com site highlights offshore operations, potentially leading to mismatched expectations.
• Similar Names:
• “Capital Markets Elite” could be confused with other brokers or financial firms with similar names (e.g., “Elite Capital Markets”). No specific competitors are mentioned in sources, but users should verify the exact entity (e.g., company number 07832612 for UK).
• U.S. Restrictions:
• The firm’s explicit exclusion of solicited U.S. persons may confuse U.S. clients who encounter marketing or assume U.S. protections apply.
• Analysis:
• Brand confusion is a moderate risk due to multiple entities and websites. Users must distinguish between the FCA-regulated UK entity and offshore affiliates, ensuring they engage with the intended operation.

11. Website Content Analysis ¶

• Content Overview:
• The website (cmelitegroup.co.uk) promotes sophisticated trading platforms (e.g., CAP it ALL, CPro, DAS Trader Pro) with real-time Level 2 data, dynamic charting, and mobile access.
• It offers equities, ETFs, and forex trading, with leverage up to 200:1 for forex and 6:1 for margin accounts. No commodities, precious metals, or crypto are available.
• Risk warnings are prominent, noting the high risk of leveraged products and a 92% loss rate for retail investors.
• Transparency:
• Fees are listed in USD, with platform and market data fees subject to change and non-pro-ratable. ECN/routing fees and regulatory trade fees are additional, reducing cost clarity.
• The privacy policy and terms of use are detailed, outlining data handling, arbitration for disputes, and user responsibilities.
• User Experience:
• The CAP it ALL platform is praised for its minimalist, customizable design and no platform fee (though market data fees apply). Tutorials, FAQs, and responsive support are available.
• Warnings about hotkey trading risks (e.g., accidental triggers) show attention to usability issues.
• Analysis:
• The website is professional, with clear risk disclosures and platform details, but fee transparency could improve. The focus on advanced tools suits experienced traders, but novices may find the high-risk warnings and leverage daunting.

12. Overall Assessment and Recommendations ¶

• Strengths:
• FCA regulation for the UK entity ensures credibility and client protections.
• Positive reviews highlight platform stability, fast executions, and responsive support.
• Advanced platforms like CAP it ALL and DAS Trader Pro cater to active traders.
• Weaknesses:
• Offshore affiliations (Cayman, Trinidad) and lack of U.S. registration increase risk.
• Serious complaints about data handling and account closures raise red flags.
• Limited reviews for the UK site and potential brand confusion between entities.
• Recommendations:
• For Users: Verify FCA status, start with a small deposit, and document all interactions. Avoid sharing excessive personal data and consult advisors for high-leverage trading.
• For the Firm: Increase transparency on fees, clarify distinctions between entities, and address onboarding complaints to rebuild trust.
• Risk Rating: Moderate to High
• Suitable for experienced traders comfortable with offshore risks and FCA oversight, but caution is advised for novices or U.S. clients due to regulatory gaps and complaint history.

Notes ¶

• This analysis is based on provided sources and critical evaluation as of April 22, 2025. Users should conduct real-time checks (e.g., WHOIS, FCA register, social media) for the latest information.
• If you need specific tools (e.g., WHOIS lookup, IP analysis) or further details, please clarify, and I can guide you on accessing them.
• No images were generated, as the query focuses on analysis, but I can assist with visualizations (e.g., risk charts) if requested. Let me know if you need deeper analysis on any section or additional broker comparisons!