Below is a comprehensive analysis of Everest Markets Limited (http://www.everestmarkets.com) based on the requested criteria. The analysis draws on available information, including web sources, and critically evaluates potential risks, regulatory status, and other factors. Note that some aspects, such as real-time WHOIS lookup or IP analysis, may require specific tools or access beyond the provided data, but I will address these as thoroughly as possible based on available information and general practices.

1. Online Complaint Information ¶

• Complaints and Reviews:
• Forex Peace Army (FPA): The FPA has blacklisted Everest Markets, labeling it a scam based on multiple unresolved issues, including three FPA Traders Court Guilty verdicts. Complaints include prolonged withdrawal delays (e.g., a user reported waiting over a month for a withdrawal despite a stated 10-day processing time) and unresponsive support, particularly from an individual named Max Fuller, identified as a scammer by FPA.
• WikiFX: User complaints on WikiFX report significant financial losses, with one user claiming to have paid $184,447.22 and $28,427.83 in 2022, expecting a payout of $812,223.92 that was never received. Complaints also mention repeated demands for additional margin payments to “unfreeze” accounts or increase credit scores, a common tactic in scam operations.
• Personal Reviews: This site warns that Everest Markets is an unregulated broker, likely engaging in deceptive practices such as promising unrealistic returns to lure deposits and using “retention agents” to extract more funds. It advises users to file complaints with authorities and leave negative reviews to warn others.
• Pattern of Complaints:
• Common issues include withdrawal delays or refusals, demands for additional payments, and lack of response from support. These are consistent with tactics used by fraudulent brokers to delay or prevent payouts.
• The volume and severity of complaints, combined with blacklisting by reputable review platforms, indicate a high likelihood of fraudulent activity. Risk Level: High, based on consistent complaints about non-payment, deceptive practices, and blacklisting.

2. Risk Level Assessment ¶

• Operational Risks:
• Everest Markets offers high leverage (up to 1:500), which is significantly higher than regulatory limits in jurisdictions like Europe (1:30) or the U.S. (1:50). High leverage increases financial risk for users and is often used by unregulated brokers to attract inexperienced traders.
• The broker promotes complex financial products like Contracts for Difference (CFDs), which carry high risk and are unsuitable for most retail investors. The website acknowledges this risk but does not emphasize user education or risk mitigation.
• Trustworthiness:
• Multiple sources, including FPA and Personal Reviews, label Everest Markets as a scam due to unresolved complaints and lack of accountability.
• The absence of verifiable positive user feedback and the presence of severe complaints (e.g., large financial losses) further erode trust.
• Fraud Indicators:
• Tactics like demanding additional margins to “unfreeze” accounts or complete withdrawals are hallmarks of scam brokers.
• The broker’s association with automated trading software, often linked to scams, adds to the risk profile. Risk Level: High, due to high-leverage offerings, scam allegations, and deceptive practices.

3. Website Security Tools ¶

• SSL Certificate:
• The website (http://www.everestmarkets.com) does not use HTTPS, which is a significant red flag. Legitimate financial platforms universally use HTTPS to encrypt user data. The lack of an SSL certificate suggests poor security practices and potential vulnerability to data breaches.
• Security Measures Claimed:
• The website claims to use “high-level encryption technology” to protect user identity and personal information. However, without HTTPS, these claims are dubious and lack verifiable evidence.
• Other Security Indicators:
• No information is provided about two-factor authentication (2FA), secure login protocols, or compliance with cybersecurity standards like GDPR or PCI-DSS, which are standard for legitimate brokers.
• The absence of transparency about security tools contrasts with legitimate brokers, who typically detail their cybersecurity measures. Risk Level: High, due to the lack of HTTPS and unverifiable security claims.

4. WHOIS Lookup ¶

• Domain Information:
• A WHOIS lookup for http://www.everestmarkets.com is not directly provided in the references, but general practices and available data allow for analysis.
• The domain’s age is not specified, but scam brokers often use newly registered domains (less than a year old) to avoid scrutiny. If the domain is recent, it would align with scam characteristics noted in similar cases (e.g., evnttc.com, flagged for short domain age).
• WHOIS privacy protection is common for both legitimate and fraudulent sites, but scam brokers often hide registrant details to obscure their identity. Without specific WHOIS data, this remains a potential red flag.
• Registrant Location:
• The website claims a registered address in London (for Everest Markets) and Mauritius (for Everest CM, a related brand). However, these addresses are not verified, and Mauritius is a known offshore jurisdiction with lax regulatory oversight, often used by scam brokers. Risk Level: Moderate to High, pending WHOIS data. The use of offshore jurisdictions and lack of transparency are concerning.

5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

• Server Location:
• No specific IP or hosting data is provided for everestmarkets.com. However, scam websites are often hosted in high-risk locations identified by the International Banking Federation for fraud and corruption.
• If the server is located in an offshore or high-risk jurisdiction (e.g., Mauritius, Seychelles), it would align with scam patterns.
• Hosting Practices:
• The website may use shared hosting or low-cost providers, common among scam brokers to minimize costs. Legitimate brokers typically invest in dedicated, secure hosting with reputable providers like AWS or Cloudflare.
• The lack of HTTPS suggests minimal investment in secure infrastructure, further supporting the likelihood of low-quality hosting. Risk Level: Moderate, due to lack of specific data. Offshore hosting or poor infrastructure would elevate this to High.

6. Social Media Presence ¶

• Claimed Presence:
• Everest Markets claims to have a presence on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
• However, no specific account details or activity levels are provided, and scam brokers often create minimal or fake social media profiles to appear legitimate.
• Engagement and Authenticity:
• Legitimate brokers maintain active, verified social media accounts with regular updates, user engagement, and transparent communication. The absence of verifiable social media activity for Everest Markets is a red flag.
• Complaints on platforms like WikiFX mention Everest Markets’ unresponsiveness, suggesting that social media channels, if they exist, are not used for effective customer support.
• Risk of Misinformation:
• Scam brokers may use social media to post fake testimonials or misleading promotions. Any Everest Markets social media content should be scrutinized for authenticity. Risk Level: High, due to lack of verifiable, active social media presence and potential for deceptive marketing.

7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

• Unregulated Status:
• Everest Markets is not regulated by any recognized financial authority. WikiFX explicitly states that it has “no valid regulatory information” and operates without a license.
• The broker is registered in Mauritius under Myrtle Ltd (registration number 1799291 GBC), but Mauritius is an offshore jurisdiction with minimal oversight, insufficient for investor protection.
• Withdrawal Issues:
• Repeated complaints about withdrawal delays, refusals, or demands for additional payments are strong indicators of fraudulent intent.
• High Leverage and Promises:
• Offering 1:500 leverage and promoting “intelligent investing” with “award-winning platforms” without evidence is a common tactic to attract novice traders.
• Lack of Transparency:
• The website lacks clear information about management, ownership, or operational history. The claimed London address is unverified, and the Mauritius address raises concerns about offshore operations.
• Association with Scams:
• The FPA’s blacklisting and association with Max Fuller, labeled a scammer, significantly increase the risk profile.
• The broker’s link to automated trading software, often used in scams, is another red flag.
• Suspicious Practices:
• Demands for margins to “unfreeze” accounts or complete withdrawals are manipulative tactics used by scam brokers. Risk Level: Very High, due to multiple, severe red flags.

8. Website Content Analysis ¶

• Claims and Promises:
• The website promotes “award-winning trading platforms” and “intelligent investing” across assets like stocks, indices, currencies, cryptocurrencies, and commodities. These claims are vague and lack evidence (e.g., no mention of specific awards or third-party endorsements).
• It emphasizes low fees and robust safety measures, but these are contradicted by the lack of HTTPS and regulatory oversight.
• Risk Disclosures:
• The site includes a disclaimer about the high risks of CFDs and leverage, which is standard but does not mitigate the lack of regulation or transparency.
• Professionalism and Clarity:
• The website’s content is generic, focusing on marketing buzzwords (“trusted and reliable trading solutions”) rather than detailed information about operations, team, or compliance. This aligns with scam broker websites that prioritize persuasion over substance.
• The complaints handling procedure mentions a 180-day investigation period, which is unusually long and suggests deliberate delays in addressing user issues.
• Suspicious Elements:
• The claim of being based in London conflicts with the Mauritius registration, creating confusion about the broker’s true operational base.
• The mention of “community operations” and “smart investing solutions” is vague and atypical for a regulated broker, suggesting potential misrepresentation. Risk Level: High, due to vague, unverifiable claims and inconsistencies.

9. Regulatory Status ¶

• Lack of Regulation:
• Everest Markets is not regulated by any recognized financial authority, such as the FCA (UK), ASIC (Australia), or FINMA (Switzerland). WikiFX confirms it has “no valid regulatory information.”
• The broker operates under Myrtle Ltd in Mauritius, which is not a substitute for regulation by a Tier-1 or Tier-2 authority. Mauritius is known for lax oversight, making it a haven for unregulated brokers.
• Historical Context:
• The FPA notes that Everest Markets Limited was deregistered from the Financial Services Providers register in New Zealand, and its membership with Financial Services Complaints Limited (FSCL) was terminated in 2013. This indicates a history of regulatory non-compliance.
• Comparison to Peers:
• Regulated brokers (e.g., those overseen by FCA, ASIC, or CySEC) are required to maintain client fund segregation, adhere to KYC/AML standards, and participate in compensation schemes. Everest Markets lacks these protections, increasing the risk of fund loss. Risk Level: Very High, due to complete lack of regulatory oversight.

10. User Precautions ¶

To protect themselves, users should consider the following:

• Avoid Unregulated Brokers: Choose brokers regulated by Tier-1 authorities (e.g., FCA, ASIC, FINMA) to ensure fund protection and legal recourse.
• Verify Withdrawal Policies: Before depositing, confirm the broker’s withdrawal process and test it with a small amount. Be wary of demands for additional payments to access funds.
• Research Complaints: Check platforms like FPA, WikiFX, and BrokersView for user reviews and scam warnings. Consistent complaints, as seen with Everest Markets, are a red flag.
• Secure Transactions: Only use platforms with HTTPS and verified security measures. Avoid sharing sensitive information on unsecured sites like everestmarkets.com.
• File Complaints: If scammed, contact local financial regulators, file complaints with authorities, and share experiences on review platforms to warn others.
• Use Trusted Tools: Utilize broker comparison tools like BrokerChooser or Traders Union to find regulated alternatives.

11. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

• Similar Entities:
• Everest Group (www.everestgrp.com): A legitimate global research firm focused on business insights, not trading. It has no relation to Everest Markets but could be confused due to the similar name.
• Everest Trust (www.everestrust.com): Another broker flagged as a scam by FINMA for operating without authorization. Its shared naming convention and lack of regulation suggest possible intentional mimicry to confuse users.
• Everest Evolution (www.everestglobal.com): A U.S.-based insurance brand under Everest Insurance, unrelated to trading. Its reputable status could be exploited by Everest Markets to create a false sense of legitimacy.
• Everest CM: A trading brand under Myrtle Ltd, linked to Everest Markets, operating from Mauritius. This creates confusion about whether Everest Markets and Everest CM are distinct or the same entity.
• Risk of Misidentification:
• Scam brokers often use names similar to reputable firms to piggyback on their credibility. Everest Markets’ use of “Everest” could mislead users familiar with Everest Group or Everest Evolution.
• The London address claim may exploit the UK’s reputation for strict regulation, despite the broker’s Mauritius base.
• Domain Variations:
• Related domains like market.everest.gold (rated medium to low risk but not guaranteed safe) suggest possible affiliated scam sites. Users should verify exact URLs to avoid phishing or clone sites. Risk Level: Moderate to High, due to potential confusion with legitimate entities and unclear branding.

Summary of Findings ¶

• Overall Risk Level: Very High
• Everest Markets Limited exhibits multiple characteristics of a scam broker, including lack of regulation, severe user complaints, withdrawal issues, and deceptive practices.
• The absence of HTTPS, unverifiable claims, and offshore registration in Mauritius further elevate the risk.
• Key Red Flags:
• Blacklisted by Forex Peace Army and labeled a scam.
• No regulatory oversight, with a history of deregistration in New Zealand.
• Consistent complaints about non-payment and manipulative tactics (e.g., margin demands).
• Lack of transparency about ownership, management, and security measures.
• Potential brand confusion with legitimate entities like Everest Group or Everest Evolution.
• Recommendation:
• Avoid Everest Markets: Do not deposit funds or engage with this broker due to the high likelihood of fraud.
• Choose regulated brokers with verifiable licenses from authorities like FCA, ASIC, or CySEC.
• Conduct thorough due diligence, including checking WHOIS data, user reviews, and regulatory status, before trading with any broker.

Notes ¶

• Limitations: Specific WHOIS, IP, or hosting data for everestmarkets.com was not available in the provided references. Real-time analysis using tools like GoDaddy WHOIS or SecurityScorecard could provide further insights.
• Critical Perspective: The analysis avoids accepting claims at face value, cross-referencing user complaints, regulatory warnings, and website content to form an evidence-based conclusion. The pattern of red flags aligns with known scam broker tactics, outweighing the broker’s unverified claims of legitimacy.
• Sources: Cited references (e.g.,) provide the backbone of the analysis, supplemented by general knowledge of scam broker characteristics. If you need further assistance, such as a comparison with regulated brokers or help filing a complaint, let me know!