Is the Crossing Hurdles Company legit or a scam
Executive summary
Crossing Hurdles presents a mixed picture: publicly visible employee profiles and platform listings portray it as an ed‑tech/mentoring initiative active enough to appear on Glassdoor and Internshala [1] [2], while multiple user reports and automated scam‑detector evaluations flag suspicious behavior and low trust scores [3] [4]. The evidence does not prove a single clear outcome; instead it shows competing signals that require cautious skepticism and further verification before trusting the company with money, personal data, or job‑search reliance.
1. Positive signals and presence in legitimate channels
There are documented profiles and descriptions of Crossing Hurdles on mainstream job and internship platforms: Glassdoor hosts a company profile with employee‑posted salaries and reviews [1], and Internshala lists Crossing Hurdles as an ed‑tech initiative mentoring candidates for product management and consulting roles, even claiming placement assistance to major firms [2]. These listings suggest an operational footprint and engagement with legitimate recruitment or training ecosystems, because both Glassdoor and Internshala are established services that generally require at least some public-facing company information [1] [2].
2. Negative reports and fraud indicators
Counterbalancing the presence signals are multiple consumer and automated warnings. A dedicated Scam Detector review gives crossinghurdles.com a very low trust score and labels the site “suspicious,” citing factors such as a newly registered domain and algorithmic flags for high‑risk activity including phishing and spamming [3]. Ripoff Report returns numerous complaint pages for “crossing‑hurdles‑reviews,” which indicates that at least some users have publicly alleged harassment, dishonesty, or other grievances [4]. Anonymous Glassdoor reviews also include allegations that the company is a “scam,” with one reviewer stating they could not find anyone who actually obtained a job through the company and another alleging the operation is used to “train their AI” [5] [6]. Those user‑generated claims cannot be accepted as proof on their own, but they are consistent enough across platforms to raise concern [5] [6] [4].
3. Conflicting technical assessments and what they mean
Automated reputation tools disagree: Gridinsoft’s scanner assigns crossinghurdles.com a high trust score and calls the domain safe, citing domain longevity and extended registration as signs of stability [7], while Scam Detector’s validator gives the site a low trust score and warns of high‑risk activity [3]. This divergence illustrates a common reality in online vetting: different platforms weigh signals differently (domain age and uptime versus behavioral indicators like reported spam or risk patterns), producing opposite outcomes. Both types of signals are factual — the domain age exists [7] and algorithmic risk flags were reported [3] — but neither alone resolves whether the business operates in good faith.
4. Reading the user reviews: patterns, anonymity, and agenda
The most damning content comes from anonymous user reviews on Glassdoor and complaint boards: reviewers claim no successful placements and allege deceptive practices [5] [6] [4]. These posts may reflect real grievances, misunderstandings, or coordinated complaints; anonymity complicates verification [1] [4]. At the same time, platforms that compile these reports have incentives — legitimate consumer‑protection sites seek to highlight risks, while complaint aggregators keep posts permanently to attract traffic — which can amplify negative narratives even when evidence is thin [3] [4]. The presence of both negative user testimony and neutral/positive platform listings suggests competing agendas and noise rather than definitive proof of criminal intent.
5. Practical verdict and next steps
Given the mixed record, it is prudent to treat Crossing Hurdles as unproven rather than categorically legitimate or a confirmed scam: there is enough negative user testimony and at least one prominent automated low‑trust assessment to warrant caution, and enough platform presence and a favorable technical report to suggest some legitimate activity [5] [3] [7] [2]. Recommended actions include verifying company registration and leadership through public business registries, seeking verifiable alumni or client references beyond anonymous reviews, avoiding upfront payments for vague services, and using payment methods with fraud protection if one chooses to engage — steps that follow logically from the factual mix documented across Glassdoor, Scam Detector, Gridinsoft, Internshala, and Ripoff Report [1] [3] [7] [2] [4].