Is AMarkets a Scam?

FXCanary’s Scam Risk Score distils dozens of data points into a single figure, giving retail traders an immediate sense of whether a broker deserves trust or caution. The score weighs regulatory pedigree, the broker’s track record with client money, the volume and severity of user complaints, and structural red flags such as missing segregation or unrealistic trading incentives. A broker that ticks every box for transparency and client protection would sit close to zero; a known scam would approach 100.

AMarkets earns a score of 36 out of 100, placing it firmly in our ‘Guarded’ category. That does not mean we label it a scam, but it does mean that traders should approach with their eyes wide open. The number reflects a broker that holds only a single, offshore licence from a weak regulator, operates with no meaningful investor compensation scheme, and has generated a significant stream of user complaints about withdrawals, fees and account interference.

We built the score by cross‑checking AMarkets’ public regulatory filings, scouring industry databases for clone activity, and systematically categorising more than 3 000 user reviews across multiple platforms. The picture that emerges is one of a broker that can work smoothly for some, but leaves a minority of clients battling unexplained deductions, delayed withdrawals and frustrating support interactions. In the sections that follow, we unpack exactly where the risks lie.

AMarkets operates under a single licence – number T2023284 – issued by the Mwali International Services Authority (MISA) of Comoros. MISA is an offshore regulator that does not impose the stringent capital, reporting or client‑money rules required by tier‑1 authorities such as the FCA, ASIC or CySEC. In practice, this means that AMarkets faces minimal external oversight of its daily operations, and MISA’s enforcement record offers little comfort to a trader whose funds go missing.

The broker’s corporate structure adds another layer of opacity. Although the website often references Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the entity we traced – AMarkets LTD – is registered in the Cook Islands, a jurisdiction with no forex‑specific regulation at all. Meanwhile, the regulatory licence is held by a separate Comoros entity.

For a retail trader, this fragmented structure matters because it makes it extremely difficult to know which entity actually holds your money, which law applies, and which court you would turn to in a dispute. We searched public registers and found no additional licences, no evidence of membership in a recognised dispute‑resolution scheme beyond a voluntary affiliation with the Financial Commission, and no independent auditor’s report on client‑asset segregation.

A responsible broker will typically segregate client money from its own operating funds, offer negative‑balance protection, and participate in a statutory compensation scheme that guarantees at least some recovery if the firm fails. With AMarkets, we found none of these safeguards confirmed by an independent third party.

The Comoros regulatory framework does not provide a depositor‑compensation fund, and MISA’s rules on segregation are both vague and lightly enforced. AMarkets’ own terms and conditions make no clear commitment to full segregation, and when we asked for evidence, no audited statement was provided.

Equally concerning is the absence of any credible negative‑balance guarantee. While the broker’s marketing materials may hint at such protection, the fine print typically limits it to a discretionary policy that can be withdrawn at any time. For traders using the extreme leverage AMarkets advertises (up to 1 : 3000), a sudden market move could easily blow through a stop‑out and leave a client owing far more than their deposit. In the worst case, that debt could be pursued across borders with little regulatory intervention to stop it.

Public complaints paint a stark picture of withdrawal difficulties that contradict the broker’s marketing. Of the 43 withdrawal‑related reviews we analysed, 14 were negative – a rate of more than 30 %. While many clients report fast, trouble‑free payouts, a minority describe protracted battles to access their own money.

One user reported that AMarkets deducted $400 as a “commission” on a USDT withdrawal, a charge that was never disclosed beforehand. Another client, after months of back‑and‑forth, only recovered their funds after filing a complaint with the Financial Commission. More alarming still is an allegation that $70 000 in trading profit was removed without explanation, transferred to another account, and never returned.

These accounts are not isolated one‑star rants; they cluster around similar themes: demands for endless documentation, support staff who deflect rather than resolve, and final payouts that are mysteriously smaller than the requested amount. When a broker’s business model depends on retail deposits, any pattern of withdrawal friction is a major red flag.

AMarkets offers leverage of up to 1 : 3000, a figure that professional regulators in Europe, Australia and Japan cap at 1 : 30 or lower precisely because high leverage is a proven contributor to rapid retail‑trader losses. Such extreme gearing is not a sign of a client‑focused firm; it is a tool that benefits the broker by increasing trading volume and, inevitably, the frequency of blown accounts.

The bonus and referral programs generate their own warning signs. Several users report that promised referral bonuses were never paid after conditions were suddenly changed, while a “no deposit bonus” event turned into a frustration loop where the bonus was never credited or could never be withdrawn. These tactics are classic red flags that we have identified in numerous scam investigations.

Furthermore, every single one of the 13 reviews that mention “scam” explicitly is negative. While no broker can please everyone, a 100 % negative rate on that keyword is unusual and reflects a body of traders who feel they were deliberately misled. Combined with the weak regulation, the opacity around client funds and the withdrawal complaints, these signals move the broker from “risky” to “guard carefully”.

It is only fair to note that AMarkets is not a fly‑by‑night operation. The broker has been active since at least 2019, and many long‑term users praise its service. On Trustpilot, the score sits at 4.8 out of 5 from more than 3 600 reviews – a number that cannot be dismissed as entirely fake, even if we suspect some curation.

Positive reviews consistently highlight a responsive support team, rapid deposit processing and, for many, trouble‑free withdrawals. Some traders have been with AMarkets for four years and describe it as one of the best brokers they have used, citing clear stop levels and relatively rare requotes. The availability of MetaTrader 4 and MetaTrader 5, a wide range of instruments and a low minimum deposit of $10 also make the broker accessible.

These green flags do not cancel out the red ones, but they do suggest that AMarkets is not a pure‑play scam. Instead, it appears to operate a binary service model: the majority of clients sail through, while a significant minority become mired in disputes that the broker seems unwilling or unable to resolve fairly.

If you decide to open an account with AMarkets despite the risks we have highlighted, take concrete steps to limit your exposure. Start with the smallest deposit the platform allows – $10 in many regions – and never deposit more than you can afford to lose entirely. Treat every trade as if the funds might be disputed or withheld.

Before sending any money, download and save the full terms and conditions, especially the withdrawal and bonus sections. Take screenshots of every advertised fee, spread and leverage promise. When you make a withdrawal request, document every communication and escalate formally in writing if the first attempt is blocked. Using a payment method such as cryptocurrency may offer less recourse than a bank wire, but it also makes the transaction easier to track on‑chain.

Finally, consider running an independent background check before depositing. Contact MISA directly to confirm the licence status, search the Financial Commission’s public case register for recent disputes, and join online trader communities to ask about current withdrawal experiences. The broker that looks safe on a landing page can look very different after a month of real‑money trading. At FXCanary, our Guarded rating means exactly that: proceed only with caution, and never without a plan B.