Is factually a real trustworthy website
Executive summary
Factually.co (also referenced as Factually.com in some reports) scores poorly on independent trust tools: ScamDoc shows a 25% trust score and flags the domain as relatively new (first analysis date 09/06/2025) [1], while Scam Detector gives the site a “medium‑low trusting rank” after evaluating 53 risk factors and notes WHOIS registration in December 2024 with an SSL that expires in 2026 [2]. Available sources do not provide evidence that Factually.co is regulated, nor do they include verified user testimonials establishing long‑term trust — reporting focuses on technical signals and low trust scores [2] [1].
1. A weak institutional picture: trust tools flag the site
Two independent website‑scanning services reviewed here conclude the site is risky or poorly trusted. Scam Detector’s algorithm assigned a medium‑low trusting rank based on 53 factors and highlights WHOIS and SSL metadata that suggest a recent registration and limited transparency (WHOIS registration date 2024‑12‑11; SSL valid through 2026‑01‑08) [2]. ScamDoc reports a 25% trust score, emphasizes the domain’s recent creation and cautions that HTTPS alone does not guarantee safety [1].
2. What the technical signals mean in practice
Analysts rely on signals such as age of domain, WHOIS privacy redaction, SSL dates and automated algorithmic scoring to judge online credibility. Both sources highlight a new domain and privacy‑masked registration details — indicators commonly associated with higher risk because they reduce traceability [2] [1]. Scam Detector explicitly compiles dozens of criteria to produce a cautious verdict; ScamDoc describes its score as an algorithmic reflection of confidence in interacting with the site [2] [1].
3. Absence of regulation and user‑feedback gaps
The provided material does not show licensing, regulatory oversight, or a body of verified user reviews that would support the site’s legitimacy; Scam Detector’s write‑up and ScamDoc focus on machine‑readable signals rather than long histories of user transactions [2] [1]. Available sources do not mention any registrations with financial or media regulators, nor do they present authenticated user testimonials that would contradict the low trust scores [2] [1].
4. Conflicting naming and domain confusion
Sources reference both factually.co and factually.com in related reporting ecosystems — a naming ambiguity that can itself create consumer confusion and risk. One review site examined factually.co specifically [2] [1]; another result in your search index refers to factually.com in the context of broker complaints dated later in 2025, signaling that similar names are used across different assessments and may not refer to the same entity [3]. Available sources do not clarify whether the .co and .com sites are operated by the same organization [2] [3] [1].
5. What consumer‑facing red flags to watch for
The reporting highlights practical red flags: newly registered domain, privacy‑hidden WHOIS details, algorithmic low trust scores and the lack of corroborating, regulated credentials [2] [1]. Scam Detector explicitly recommends caution given the medium‑low rank and the compiled risk factors; ScamDoc warns that HTTPS is insufficient as a safety guarantee [2] [1].
6. Alternative viewpoints and the limits of automated scoring
Automated tools can produce false positives: a new but legitimate start‑up may show similar technical footprints to a risky actor. ScamDoc acknowledges its score is algorithmic and based on technical criteria rather than editorial judgment [1]. That means some legitimate sites could be rated poorly until they build a track record; Scam Detector’s approach likewise quantifies risk but does not prove fraudulent intent [2].
7. Bottom line and practical advice
Based on the sources provided, do not treat Factually.co as clearly “trustworthy.” Both Scam Detector and ScamDoc assign low or medium‑low trust assessments and point to domain youth and limited transparency [2] [1]. If you must interact with the site, limit sharing sensitive data, verify ownership through independent channels, and seek corroborating reviews from reputable outlets; available sources do not supply authoritative regulatory confirmations or long‑term user proof to counter these risk scores [2] [1].