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.
Who owns and runs Factually.co
Executive Summary
Public records and the assembled analyses show no single, undisputed public record establishing who definitively owns and runs Factually.co; available investigative notes point to confusion with similarly named organizations and conflicting claims about ownership. Some commercial profiles assert a connection to Factual, Inc. and founder Gil Elbaz, but other reviews and site-level inspections find insufficient transparent ownership disclosure, leaving the site's true governance and funding uncertain [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the ownership question matters and what the searches reveal
Search analyses repeatedly flag opacity and potential name confusion as the core problem: automated and human reviews of Factually.co return mixed signals and conflation with other brands such as The Factual, Factly, Factual (the data company), and Factually Health. One analysis found no direct ownership information on the site or in search results, noting that public results tended to point to unrelated entities and that the absence of clear corporate disclosures raises legitimate transparency concerns [1] [2]. The persistence of ambiguous site metadata and a lack of clear “About” or legal ownership statements makes independent verification difficult, which matters for readers who need to assess editorial independence and potential conflicts of interest.
2. The claim linking Factually.co to Factual, Inc. and Gil Elbaz — what supports it and what does not
A business-profile analysis asserts that Factual, Inc., founded by Gil Elbaz and backed by venture capital firms, is the corporate owner behind Factually.co and that Elbaz runs the company day‑to‑day; this profile names funding rounds and investors as supporting evidence [3]. That claim, if accurate, would situate Factually.co within the ecosystem of a privately held data company with institutional backers. However, the rest of the assembled analyses do not independently corroborate that linkage: other documents reviewed either do not mention Factually.co at all or describe entirely different organizations with overlapping names, which weakens the confidence in an unequivocal ownership assertion [1] [4].
3. Conflicting signals from site-level content and unrelated entity profiles
Multiple content-level analyses found either technical page fragments, JavaScript, or references to different projects—none of which provide a clean trail to owners or executives of Factually.co. One evaluation noted page code and metadata that fail to disclose governance, while other profiles returned information about Factually-branded health platforms and unrelated media-fact initiatives [5] [4]. The cumulative picture is fragmented and noisy, producing plausible but unverified associations between Factually.co and several distinct organizations. This fragmentation increases the risk of mistaken identity and demonstrates why simple search results can be misleading without deeper corporate-record checks.
4. Evaluating credibility: what the analyses tolerate and what they flag as weak
The assembled analyses treat formal corporate profiles (e.g., established databases or investor records) as higher value, exemplified by the Tracxn-style profile that supplies founder and funding details for a company called Factual [3]. Yet other sources and screen-scrapes fail to replicate those linkages to Factually.co, and several summaries explicitly warn that results primarily reference other entities such as The Factual or Factly, not the site in question [2] [6]. The net effect is contradictory evidentiary weight: a business-directory claim exists, but independent content- and site-level audits do not confirm it, leaving the question open rather than settled.
5. What’s missing, recommended next steps, and potential agendas to watch
The analyses collectively show the absence of transparent ownership disclosure and inconsistent third-party indexing; remedies include checking corporate registries, WHOIS/hosting records, regulatory filings, and direct inquiries to the site for an ownership statement. Observers should watch for possible motives behind opaque branding, such as reputation management, editorial distancing, or commercial partnerships that might explain deliberate non-disclosure. Given the mixed evidence—one commercial profile asserting Factual/Founder ownership alongside multiple audits finding no clear link—the prudent conclusion is that Factually.co’s ownership is not reliably established from the available materials and requires primary-source verification [1] [3] [4].