What is factually.co and should I trust it?
Executive summary
Available reporting on factually.co is limited and mixed: consumer-safety sites flag risk and low trust scores, while extension listings show a small user base and permissions that could be invasive (Scam Detector gives a “medium-low” trust rank [1]; a Chrome extension listing showed 54 users and warned it can inject scripts into pages [2]). Other review sites show poor trust ratings or describe complaints for related domains but do not present an authoritative audit or regulator findings [3] [4].
1. What the sites say factually.co is — a fact‑checking tool
Factually.co presents itself as a “personal fact‑checking companion” that allows users to search trending fact‑checks and read a related blog (Scam Detector summary of site content) [1]. A companion Chrome extension called “Factually — One‑Click Fact Checking” links to factually.co and advertises sourcing from both mainstream and niche outlets (chrome‑stats listing) [2].
2. Trust and risk signals flagged by consumer watchdogs
Scam Detector analyzed 53 factors and assigned factually.co a “medium‑low trusting rank,” explicitly advising caution and noting “controversial” indicators and red flags in the site’s connections [1]. Another aggregator, ScamDoc, gives a poor trust score (25%) and frames that score as an algorithmic confidence metric for exchanges with the site [3]. These are not regulatory judgments but reputation/algorithmic assessments pointing to caution [1] [3].
3. Technical and privacy concerns from the extension listing
The Chrome extension listing tied to factually.co notes a tiny user base (about 54 users) and requires permissions such as storage and identity; the listing also flags that the extension can inject scripts into pages, which “may alter or extract site contents,” a capability the listing characterizes as a significant risk if misused [2]. The same listing shows the extension’s creation and last‑updated dates in mid‑2025 and an associated Gmail contact [2].
4. Gaps in authoritative verification or regulatory oversight
Available sources do not include independent audits, regulator statements, or major news investigations confirming factually.co’s editorial processes, data handling, or funding. Scam Detector and ScamDoc scores reflect reputational heuristics rather than regulatory enforcement, and the extension listing provides technical details but not a privacy audit [1] [3] [2]. In short: available sources do not mention formal accreditation or third‑party verification.
5. Confusing or conflated reporting across similar domains
One review page in the results refers to “factually.com” and reports financial complaints (withdrawal issues, lack of licensing) applicable to that domain, not necessarily to factually.co; the connection between those complaints and factually.co is not established in the available sources [4]. Therefore, claims about withdrawals and broker‑style malfeasance relate to a different domain in that source and should not be assumed to apply to factually.co without further evidence [4].
6. How to weigh the evidence and make a practical decision
Given the medium‑low/poor trust scores from reputation sites and the extension’s potential to inject scripts, treat factually.co with caution: avoid submitting sensitive personal information and be careful installing browser extensions that request broad permissions [1] [3] [2]. If you want to use the service for quick checks, cross‑verify its claims with established fact‑checkers (AP, Reuters, Snopes, PolitiFact) because available sources do not show independent validation of factually.co’s methods or accuracy (p1_s4; available sources do not mention independent validation).
7. What additional information would change the assessment
A transparent team page, verifiable ownership, third‑party security/privacy audits, clear editorial policies, and independent accuracy studies would materially reduce risk concerns — none of which are present in the cited sources (available sources do not mention these items; [1]; p1_s4). Conversely, reports of scams or regulator actions tied directly to factually.co in reputable outlets would raise the alarm further — such reports are not found in the current coverage (available sources do not mention regulatory actions).
Summary recommendation: Use factually.co cautiously — treat it as a convenience tool rather than an authoritative source, avoid installing extensions that request powerful permissions unless you can verify the developer, and corroborate any important claims with established fact‑checking organizations [1] [3] [2].