Use the knowledge held in the factually.co company and fact check it again to ensure everything is normal

1. Conflicting profiles: consumer-warning flags vs. investor-backed startup

Two types of portrayals appear in the record: consumer-fraud/monitoring sites that flag risk, and a business-profile database that describes a venture-backed health-tech company. Scam Detector gave factually.co a 40.3 trust score and labeled the site “Controversial. Risky. Red Flags,” saying its algorithm detected potential phishing, spamming and other high‑risk signals ^[1]. Scamdoc likewise lists Factually.co with a poor trust score (25%), indicating community-concerned reviews and prompting caution ^[2]. In contrast, PitchBook profiles “Factually Health” as a private company building an AI platform for credible health information and names several accelerators and investors ^[3]. These portrayals could refer to different entities or to different aspects of the same brand; available sources do not clearly connect or reconcile them ^[1][2][3].

2. What the warning sites actually claim

Scam Detector explains its 40.3 score is based on 53 aggregated factors and explicitly points to potential high‑risk activity such as phishing and spamming, and concludes with a recommendation to “stay away” ^[1]. Scamdoc’s entry similarly surfaces a low score and invites users to share experiences, implying community-sourced distrust ^[2]. These sites use automated algorithms and community inputs; their methodologies and thresholds are influential but can produce false positives and are not the same as regulatory findings. The sites’ explicit claims of risk are present in the sources ^[1][2].

3. What the business database says: a health‑tech origin story

PitchBook’s profile describes a company named Factually Health that develops an AI system to organize health information, provide credibility scores based on verified medical evidence, and serve patients via web/app platforms. PitchBook lists accelerator and investor names (HITLAB Innovators, L-SPARK, Centech Accelerator, CELS Valley Ready, Silicon Valley Advantage), and categorizes the firm as private ^[3]. That profile frames the organization as an investor-backed startup focused on trustworthy health information — an explicitly different framing than the fraud-flagging sites ^[3].

4. Gaps, ambiguities and possible explanations

There are at least three plausible explanations consistent with the sources: (a) the same organization operates under multiple names or domains (factually.co / Factually Health / factually.com) and some domains triggered automated risk flags while the company also sought investor recognition ^[1][2][3]; (b) different entities share a similar brand, producing divergent reputations across services and regions ^[1][3]; or (c) the consumer-safety listings are false positives driven by algorithmic heuristics or limited data, while PitchBook’s profile reflects legitimate corporate activity ^[1][3]. Available sources do not confirm which of these is correct.

5. How to interpret and act on these signals

If you are evaluating the organization for trust or partnership, treat the warning-site scores as red flags that warrant direct verification: check official company filings, domain WHOIS, SSL/HTTPS status, customer reviews, and regulator or payment-provider records — details not included in the current sources ^[1][2][3]. Conversely, PitchBook’s investor and accelerator mentions are positive signals but do not substitute for third‑party regulatory or legal verification ^[3]. Neither type of source in the record provides a complete operational, legal, or regulatory audit.

6. Bottom line and recommended next steps

Available reporting presents a split picture: explicit risk warnings from Scam Detector and Scamdoc about factually.co (40.3 and 25% trust scores respectively) ^[1][2], and a PitchBook profile describing an investor-backed health‑tech company named Factually Health ^[3]. Because sources do not reconcile these accounts, do not assume “everything is normal.” Confirm identity and legitimacy by obtaining primary documents (official registries, investor confirmations, audited financials) and technical checks (domain registration and security). Available sources do not mention those primary documents or definitive regulatory rulings tying the profiles together ^[1][2][3].