Is askforfunding.com a legitimate company
Executive summary
AskForFunding.com operates an active fundraising marketplace with a public site and a BBB profile and describes itself as a connector—not a broker-dealer—on its own homepage [1] [2]. Independent trust-checkers and many user reports paint a mixed picture: some automated site reviewers give a medium trust score while multiple complaint sites and user reviews allege misleading claims, billing and refund problems, and possibly fictitious investor listings [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What the company says it is: a connector, not an advisor
AskForFunding’s public terms and disclaimers explicitly state the platform is a network to connect businesses with funding sources, that it is not a registered broker-dealer, and that it does not provide investment advice or execute securities transactions [1]. That disclosure is important legally—platforms that merely list opportunities occupy a different regulatory bucket than broker-dealers—yet it also shifts responsibility for diligence onto users, a fact prominently visible on their site [1].
2. Positive signals: an active site and some favorable customer reviews
The site is live and features testimonials and “recently funded” listings, and the company maintains a BBB profile that includes positive customer reviews praising responsiveness and investor connections [1] [2] [8]. Several legitimacy-check sites, including Scamadviser and Scamvoid, have produced neutral-to-moderate trust assessments rather than definitive scam condemnations, indicating a degree of online presence and technical hygiene [3] [4].
3. Negative signals: recurring consumer complaints and allegations of deceptive practices
A cluster of complaint-driven sites and community reviews—WOT, ScamPulse, ScamDoc and others—contain repeated accusations that AskForFunding charged recurring fees, failed to refund customers, used misleading investor lists, and automated responses instead of real advisor engagement; several reviewers explicitly call the service a scam based on those experiences [5] [7] [6] [9]. Those reports are consistent in theme (billing disputes, unverified “selected investors”), which elevates their weight even if they are anecdotal [5] [6] [7].
4. What third‑party evaluators conclude—and their limits
Automated evaluators such as Scam Detector and Scamadviser give the site a middling score and point to issues like poor metadata or backend weaknesses that reduce credibility, while other review sites list an 83% trust score—illustrating inconsistent assessments across services that use different methodologies and data sources [10] [3] [6]. These platforms can flag risk patterns but do not substitute for regulatory records or audited proof of investor matches; their algorithms and user-contributed reviews can reflect noise, bias or coordinated campaigns.
5. Practical due diligence based on the available evidence
Given AskForFunding’s explicit non‑broker status [1], any entrepreneur or investor should verify investor identities independently, review terms for recurring fees, demand clear refund policies, and seek references outside the site before transacting—standard precautions that the pattern of complaints suggests are especially warranted here [5] [6] [7]. Independent commentators and competitor comparisons also caution that the quality and verifiability of the platform’s “investor database” and success metrics are unclear, making follow‑up verification non-negotiable [11] [9].
6. Bottom line: operates but with red flags — caution advised
Available reporting shows AskForFunding.com is a functioning platform that presents itself as a lead-generation and networking service [1] and has some satisfied users and a BBB presence [2] [8], but it is also the subject of numerous complaints alleging billing issues, poor results, and unverifiable investor claims, and several watchdog sites flag it as risky or problematic [5] [6] [7] [10]. Therefore the most accurate verdict based on current sources is that AskForFunding.com appears to be a legitimate business entity in operation, but one surrounded by consistent red flags and customer complaints that make reliance without independent verification inadvisable [3] [5] [1].