Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Is factually.co fact checked?
Executive Summary
Factually.co publishes items that look like fact checks and has produced detailed analyses of topics such as VAERS and Perplexity, but independent assessments of the site’s editorial standards, ownership transparency, and long-term reliability are mixed and incomplete. Some reviews and automated trust-rating services flag factually.co as performing fact-checking work and offering substantive coverage, while other assessments raise concerns about limited vetting, potential biases, and technical signals commonly associated with new or minimally transparent sites [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. A closer look at the claim that “factually.co is fact-checked” — what evidence supports it and what doesn’t
Factually.co has produced content framed explicitly as fact checks, including detailed pieces on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and the reliability of Perplexity, demonstrating editorial effort to weigh evidence and describe limitations, which supports the claim that the site performs fact-checking work [1] [2]. Independent reviewers and site summaries cited in the data find that factually.co’s articles engage multiple sources and highlight caveats, further indicating substantive journalistic processes in specific pieces [1] [2]. At the same time, evaluators note ambiguity around whether those pieces were peer-reviewed by recognized fact-checking networks or subjected to consistent methodological disclosures, leaving open whether the site meets widely accepted external standards for certified fact-checkers [3] [5].
2. Conflicting trust and bias evaluations — automated ratings versus editorial assessments
Automated trust-rating services and aggregator analyses produce divergent risk profiles for factually.co: Scam Detector and related tools flagged red flags including proximity to suspicious sites and a low-medium trust rank, while ScamAdviser reported more positive security indicators but cautioned about new domain registration, hidden ownership, and low traffic that warrant further scrutiny [4] [6] [7]. Editorial assessments derived from the site’s articles describe an apparent nonpartisan and independent approach in individual fact checks, but observers also document contradictory evidence and potential bias within the broader fact-checking ecosystem, suggesting that the site’s content can be informative yet should be critically evaluated in context [8] [5]. These tensions produce a mixed confidence picture rather than a uniform conclusion.
3. What the dates and provenance of reviews tell us about current reliability
The provided evaluations span mid-2025 through late-September 2025, indicating that the scrutiny of factually.co is recent and ongoing (p1_s2 2025-07-26; [2] 2025-09-22; [3] 2025-09-24; [7] 2025-06-13; [4] 2025-04-20). Reviews closer to September 2025 emphasize remaining gaps in comprehensive evaluation of editorial standards and a moderate trust score, signaling that external vetting had not converged to a consensus by that time [3] [2]. Earlier automated checks from spring and early summer 2025 flagged technical and provenance concerns that persist in later summaries, showing consistent caution from technical-audit perspectives even as content-level analyses point to substantive fact-checking efforts [4] [7].
4. What’s missing from the record — ownership, methodology, and network validation
Across the collected analyses, the chief omissions are clear disclosures about ownership, funding, standardized methodology, and third-party validation—elements that readers use to judge whether a fact-checking outlet adheres to established norms [5] [7]. ScamAdviser and Scam Detector emphasize the significance of hidden owner identities, recent domain registration, and low traffic as reliability signals; content-focused reviews note that while individual pieces show care, there is limited evidence of consistent editorial policy or affiliation with recognized fact-checking organizations [7] [8]. The absence of such metadata prevents a full conclusion that factually.co is “fact-checked” in the sense of being endorsed or certified by independent fact-checking networks.
5. Bottom line and what readers should do when encountering factually.co content
The consolidated evidence shows that factually.co produces fact-check-style reporting and has published substantive pieces that analyze claims and data, but independent vetting is incomplete and inconsistent, with automated trust tools and some reviewers urging caution because of provenance and transparency gaps [1] [2] [3] [4]. Readers should treat factually.co content as potentially informative but not definitively certified, verify claims against established fact-checkers and primary sources, and look for explicit methodological disclosures or third-party endorsements before relying on the site as a sole authority [5] [7].