Below is a comprehensive analysis of MaxCFD, based on the requested criteria, using available information from online sources, including complaints, risk assessments, and other relevant data. The official website provided is https://premium.maxcfd.com/. This analysis critically examines the broker’s legitimacy, potential risks, and user precautions, while incorporating insights from the provided search results and general knowledge about evaluating online brokers.

1. Online Complaint Information ¶

Online complaints about MaxCFD (https://premium.maxcfd.com/) are numerous and raise significant concerns about its legitimacy. Key points from user reviews and forums include:

• Scam Allegations: Multiple users on platforms like Trustpilot and Forex Peace Army have labeled MaxCFD as a scam. Common complaints include:
• Difficulty Withdrawing Funds: Users report depositing funds (e.g., €250 or more) but facing delays or outright refusal when attempting to withdraw. For example, one user noted that after verifying their account, they waited months for a refund, only to have €50 deducted as an “inactivity fee” despite requesting a withdrawal.
• High-Pressure Tactics: Users describe aggressive sales tactics, with brokers pushing for larger deposits (e.g., €12,000) and discouraging consultation with others. One user reported a broker suggesting they not discuss the investment with their spouse.
• Unresponsive Support: Complaints highlight poor customer service, with users unable to contact the financial team directly and receiving evasive responses from support staff (e.g., “Lana Davis” or “Stephy Williams”).
• Unauthorized Deductions: Accounts reportedly went negative or incurred unexpected fees, even when users requested withdrawals.
• Specific Cases:
• A user lodged a complaint with Barclaycard, citing a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) warning from February 20, 2018, and successfully recovered £250 via chargeback.
• Another user, after depositing €4,750, faced delays in withdrawals and found negative reviews online, prompting them to demand a refund. They eventually recovered €5,000 after escalating the issue.
• A family reported their elderly father (70s) being misled by a MaxCFD representative (“Justin Sookun”) after seeing a Facebook ad, with login issues and no refund despite compliance with verification requests.
• Pattern of Complaints: The consistent pattern of non-payment, high-pressure sales, and unverifiable addresses suggests systemic issues. These complaints span multiple years (2017–2018), indicating persistent problems. Assessment: The volume and consistency of complaints, particularly around withdrawal issues and aggressive tactics, strongly suggest that MaxCFD operates in a manner consistent with scam brokers. The FCA warning cited by users further undermines its credibility.

2. Risk Level Assessment ¶

Based on third-party risk assessment tools and user feedback, MaxCFD’s risk level is high. Key indicators include:

• Scamadviser Trust Score: Scamadviser assigns MaxCFD a very low trust score, flagging it as a potential scam due to multiple risk factors, including hidden WHOIS data, low website traffic, and lack of regulatory oversight. The site’s algorithm considers 40 elements, such as ownership, hosting, and technology, and concludes that caution is warranted.
• Scam Detector: While not directly assessing MaxCFD, a related site (maximastv.com) received a low trust score of 14.3, indicating high risk due to suspicious success claims and a newly registered domain. MaxCFD’s similar profile suggests comparable risks.
• User-Reported Losses: Users report significant financial losses, with some describing emotional distress after being unable to recover funds. One user stated, “I lost everything and felt like my life was over.”
• Lack of Transparency: The broker’s association with Chemmi Holdings Limited and unverifiable addresses (see below) increases the risk of fraud. Assessment: MaxCFD exhibits characteristics of a high-risk broker, including low trust scores, user-reported losses, and lack of transparency. The absence of verifiable regulatory oversight amplifies this risk.

3. Website Security Tools ¶

Evaluating the security of https://premium.maxcfd.com/ involves analyzing SSL certificates, encryption, and other protective measures:

• SSL Certificate: Scamadviser confirms that MaxCFD has a valid SSL certificate, which secures communication between the user’s device and the website. However, the certificate is noted as a free or basic type, commonly used by scammers to create a false sense of security.
• Website Vulnerabilities: There is no specific data on vulnerabilities like SQL injection or cross-site scripting (XSS) for MaxCFD. However, the lack of search engine optimization (SEO) and poor website design noted by Scamadviser suggests minimal investment in robust security infrastructure.
• Third-Party Trackers: No evidence suggests MaxCFD uses invasive trackers, but the absence of a clear privacy policy (see Website Content Analysis) raises concerns about data handling. Assessment: While MaxCFD has a basic SSL certificate, this alone does not guarantee legitimacy, as scammers frequently use free certificates. The lack of detailed security information and poor website optimization indicate minimal commitment to user protection.

4. WHOIS Lookup ¶

A WHOIS lookup provides insights into the domain’s ownership and registration details:

• Domain: premium.maxcfd.com (subdomain of maxcfd.com)
• Registrar: Information is limited, but Scamadviser notes that the owner’s identity is hidden, a common tactic among fraudulent websites to avoid accountability.
• Registration Date: The domain maxcfd.com was first analyzed by Scamadviser on October 22, 2020, but no specific registration date is provided. The lack of historical WHOIS data suggests possible domain privacy services or recent registration, both red flags for brokers.
• Location: The business address listed is 20-22 Wenlock Road, London, N1 7GU, UK, associated with Chemmi Holdings Limited (Company number: 9870892). However, user investigations revealed this address as a mail forwarding service, not a physical office, and another listed address (1 Broadgate Circle, London) was a “rent-an-office” facility with no record of MaxCFD or Chemmi Holdings. Assessment: Hidden WHOIS data and unverifiable addresses strongly indicate a lack of transparency, consistent with scam operations. Legitimate brokers typically provide clear ownership and physical office details.

5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

Analyzing the IP address and hosting provider offers clues about the website’s infrastructure:

• Hosting Provider: No specific hosting provider is identified in the provided data for maxcfd.com or premium.maxcfd.com. However, similar scam websites (e.g., gopexs.com) use Cloudflare, Inc., which is common for both legitimate and fraudulent sites due to its anonymity features.
• Server Location: No precise server location is confirmed, but the London-based addresses suggest UK hosting. The discrepancy between the claimed UK presence and unverifiable addresses raises concerns about the actual server location.
• IP Reputation: There is no data on IP blacklisting or malicious activity tied to MaxCFD’s IP. However, the lack of transparency in hosting details aligns with high-risk platforms. Assessment: The absence of clear hosting information and reliance on potentially anonymized services like Cloudflare suggest an intent to obscure operational details, a common trait among scam brokers.

6. Social Media Presence ¶

MaxCFD’s social media presence is limited and problematic:

• Facebook Page: Users report encountering MaxCFD through Facebook ads, some falsely claiming endorsements from figures like Martin Lewis. The associated Binary Tilt Facebook page (linked to MaxCFD) contains comments describing scams and unfulfilled refund promises.
• Lack of Engagement: Scamadviser notes that MaxCFD’s website lacks social media links or a verifiable presence, which is unusual for legitimate brokers who typically maintain active profiles on platforms like Twitter or LinkedIn.
• Misleading Ads: The use of deceptive social media ads targeting vulnerable users (e.g., elderly individuals) indicates predatory marketing tactics. Assessment: MaxCFD’s reliance on misleading Facebook ads and lack of a robust social media presence are red flags. Legitimate brokers maintain transparent, professional social media accounts with verifiable engagement.

7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

Several red flags and risk indicators emerge from the analysis:

• Unregulated Status: MaxCFD is not regulated by any recognized financial authority. An FCA warning from 2018 explicitly cautioned against dealing with the broker, indicating it operates without authorization.
• Unverifiable Addresses: The listed London addresses are either mail forwarding services or temporary office rentals, with no physical presence confirmed.
• Hidden Ownership: WHOIS data concealment and association with Chemmi Holdings Limited (also linked to Binary Tilt, another scam broker) suggest intentional obfuscation.
• High-Pressure Sales: Brokers use aggressive tactics, pressuring users for large deposits and discouraging independent decision-making.
• Withdrawal Issues: Consistent reports of delayed or denied withdrawals, often accompanied by unexpected fees, are hallmarks of scam brokers.
• Low Website Traffic: A low Tranco ranking indicates minimal visitors, unusual for a purportedly large trading platform.
• Misleading Marketing: Claims of high profits with minimal risk and fake endorsements (e.g., Martin Lewis) are deceptive. Assessment: These red flags collectively point to MaxCFD being a high-risk platform with characteristics of a scam. The FCA warning and association with Binary Tilt further confirm its dubious nature.

8. Website Content Analysis ¶

Analyzing the content of https://premium.maxcfd.com/ provides insights into its professionalism and transparency:

• Risk Warning: The website includes a risk warning stating that CFD trading carries a high level of risk and may not be suitable for all investors. While this is standard, it does not offset other concerns.
• Ownership Claim: The site claims to be owned by Chemmi Holdings Limited, with a UK address (20-22 Wenlock Road). However, this address is unverifiable, as noted earlier.
• Platform Features: The site promotes a mobile platform with a “wide selection of assets” and a “safe and secure trading experience.” These claims are vague and lack substantiation, typical of scam brokers.
• Privacy Policy: No detailed privacy policy is referenced in the provided data, raising concerns about data handling practices. Legitimate brokers provide clear policies compliant with regulations like GDPR.
• Professionalism: Scamadviser notes poor SEO and missing elements that legitimate websites use to rank on search engines, suggesting a lack of investment in credibility. Assessment: The website’s content is superficial, with generic claims and no verifiable details. The unverifiable address and lack of a robust privacy policy undermine trust.

9. Regulatory Status ¶

MaxCFD’s regulatory status is a critical concern:

• Unregulated: MaxCFD is not regulated by any recognized financial authority, such as the FCA, SEC, or ASIC. An FCA warning from February 20, 2018, explicitly flagged MaxCFD as an unauthorized entity.
• Comparison to Regulated Brokers: Legitimate brokers, like those overseen by CySEC or FCA, must comply with strict rules, including client fund segregation and transparent operations. MaxCFD’s lack of regulation leaves users unprotected.
• Association with Binary Tilt: MaxCFD is linked to Binary Tilt, another unregulated broker with a history of scams, further eroding credibility. Assessment: The absence of regulation and an explicit FCA warning confirm that MaxCFD operates illegally in regulated markets. Users have no recourse through financial authorities if defrauded.

10. User Precautions ¶

To protect against potential scams like MaxCFD, users should take the following precautions:

• Verify Regulation: Always confirm a broker’s regulatory status with authorities like the FCA, SEC, or ASIC. Avoid unregulated brokers like MaxCFD.
• Research Reviews: Check platforms like Trustpilot, Forex Peace Army, or Scamadviser for user experiences. Consistent negative feedback, as seen with MaxCFD, is a red flag.
• Avoid High-Pressure Sales: Be wary of brokers pushing for large deposits or discouraging consultation. Legitimate brokers allow informed decision-making.
• Test Withdrawals: Deposit a small amount and attempt a withdrawal to test the process. MaxCFD’s withdrawal issues are a clear warning.
• Use Secure Payment Methods: Use credit cards or payment methods with chargeback options, as some users recovered funds this way.
• Check Addresses: Verify physical office locations. MaxCFD’s use of mail forwarding services is a red flag.
• Avoid Misleading Ads: Be cautious of social media ads with celebrity endorsements or unrealistic profit claims, as seen with MaxCFD’s Martin Lewis ads.
• Secure Personal Data: Avoid sharing sensitive information until the broker’s legitimacy is confirmed. Use strong passwords and two-factor authentication. Assessment: Users must exercise extreme caution with MaxCFD due to its scam-like characteristics. Following these precautions can help avoid financial loss.

11. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

MaxCFD’s branding raises concerns about potential confusion with legitimate entities:

• Similar Names: The name “MaxCFD” resembles legitimate financial or software companies, such as MAXQDA (a research software provider) or Max Security Solutions (a security consulting firm). This similarity could mislead users into assuming legitimacy.
• Binary Tilt Connection: MaxCFD’s association with Binary Tilt, another scam broker, suggests intentional brand overlap to confuse users familiar with Binary Tilt’s reputation.
• Generic Branding: The use of “CFD” (Contracts for Difference) in the name is generic, potentially exploiting the popularity of CFD trading to attract unsuspecting users. Assessment: MaxCFD’s naming strategy may exploit similarities with legitimate brands or generic financial terms to deceive users. The Binary Tilt connection further suggests deliberate obfuscation.

12. Critical Examination of the Narrative ¶

While the provided data and user complaints paint MaxCFD as a scam, a critical perspective considers potential biases:

• User Bias: Some complaints may stem from misunderstandings about CFD trading risks or user errors. However, the volume of consistent complaints and the FCA warning outweigh this possibility.
• Broker Defense: MaxCFD’s website claims a “safe and secure trading experience,” but this is unsubstantiated by regulatory evidence or user experiences.
• Regulatory Context: The FCA warning may reflect a specific violation rather than a blanket condemnation. However, the lack of any regulatory license and unverifiable addresses undermine any defense. Assessment: The overwhelming evidence—user complaints, low trust scores, FCA warnings, and unverifiable details—supports the conclusion that MaxCFD is likely a scam. Any counter-narrative lacks credible backing.

Conclusion ¶

MaxCFD (https://premium.maxcfd.com/) exhibits numerous characteristics of a scam broker, including:

• High Risk: Low trust scores, user-reported losses, and an FCA warning indicate significant financial risk.
• Lack of Transparency: Hidden WHOIS data, unverifiable addresses, and association with Binary Tilt suggest intentional obfuscation.
• Regulatory Issues: Unregulated status and an FCA warning confirm illegal operations in regulated markets.
• User Complaints: Consistent reports of withdrawal issues, high-pressure sales, and deceptive marketing align with scam tactics.
• Security Concerns: A basic SSL certificate and poor website design indicate minimal investment in user protection. Recommendation: Avoid MaxCFD due to its high-risk profile and scam-like characteristics. Users should prioritize regulated brokers with transparent operations, verifiable addresses, and positive user feedback. If you have engaged with MaxCFD and suspect fraud, file a complaint with your payment provider (e.g., for chargeback) and report to authorities like the FCA or Action Fraud. For further information on broker legitimacy, consult resources like:
• FCA website (https://www.fca.org.uk/)
• Scamadviser (https://www.scamadviser.com/)
• Trustpilot (https://www.trustpilot.com/) If you need assistance with a specific complaint or want to analyze another broker, please provide details, and I can assist further.

Note: This analysis is based on available data as of April 22, 2025, and reflects the most recent information from the provided sources. Always conduct independent research before engaging with any financial platform.