Is Factually a legitimate site?

1. What the checkers found — technical and reputation signals

Scam Detector’s analysis of factually.co catalogs technical metadata and a composite trust score. It reports an active SSL certificate (issuer Let’s Encrypt, valid into 2026) and WHOIS dates showing domain registration in December 2024, but concludes a medium-low trust rank and advises caution ^[1]. Reviews like this typically combine on-site content, WHOIS transparency, age, and other heuristic signals; Scam Detector explicitly says it compiled 53 factors to reach its verdict ^[1].

2. Operational transparency — what reviewers criticize

Independent reviewers looking at a same-name site (factually.com) found sparse user feedback and noted “lack of operational transparency,” highlighting concerns such as absent regulatory oversight and problems with withdrawals in that review’s framing ^[2]. The review explicitly says searches of major regulators (FCA, SEC, ASIC, FINMA) did not return licensing information for factually.com ^[2]. That lack of discoverable licensing is cited as a risk point in the review ^[2].

3. Are these sites scams, or simply new and opaque?

Available sources do not declare either site definitively a scam; they flag risk and opacity. Scam Detector’s medium-low trust rank for factually.co is a cautionary assessment rather than a legal judgment ^[1]. The factually.com review documents user concern about withdrawals and regulatory absence, but it stops short of an authoritative fraud ruling—its conclusions rest on scarce feedback and missing registration in major regulator searches ^[2].

4. How to interpret the specific technical details cited

Scam Detector lists concrete technical facts for factually.co: SSL certificate validity and WHOIS registration/renewal timestamps (domain registered 2024-12-11; SSL valid through 2026-01-08), and redacted WHOIS owner details ^[1]. Those facts show the site is newly registered and uses standard SSL provisioning; reviewers treat such short age and privacy-protected registration as possible risk signals when paired with other factors ^[1].

5. Competing perspectives and limitations of the sources

Scam Detector provides a systematic, automated-style rating and is clear it uses many heuristic factors ^[1]; its perspective can emphasize technical and metadata signals that don’t prove malicious intent. The factually.com review frames concerns around financial risk and regulatory absence ^[2]; however, that review covers a different domain (factually.com) and appears focused on broker-like risks and withdrawal reports ^[2]. Available sources do not mention any direct law-enforcement findings, official takedowns, or formal consumer protection rulings against either domain—those claims are not found in current reporting.

6. Practical steps for readers deciding whether to trust these sites

Given the indicators cited, proceed cautiously: verify domain ownership and corporate disclosures on the site (Scam Detector noted WHOIS privacy/redaction for factually.co) ^[1]; search regulator databases directly (the factually.com review reports negative results in FCA/SEC/ASIC/FINMA searches) ^[2]; and look for independent user reviews or press coverage beyond the two assessments cited here ^{[1] [2]}. If a site handles money or sensitive data, favor platforms with clear licensing and public complaints histories ^[2].

7. Bottom line

The sources reviewed raise credible concerns about transparency and trustworthiness: Scam Detector gives factually.co a medium-low trusting rank based on multiple risk factors ^[1], and a separate review finds scarce feedback and no regulator listings for factually.com ^[2]. Neither source provides a legal judgment of fraud, and available reporting does not include definitive enforcement records; both recommend caution and further verification before trusting either domain ^{[1] [2]}.