FOREX.com Review

When a broker carries no independent user reviews, our job is to build the picture from the ground up: regulatory registers, corporate records, the official website, and any public footprint we can verify. For this profile of FOREX.com (StoneX Financial Ltd.), we cross-checked the licences on file against the public registers of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), and we attempted to verify the official domain and company history.

What we found is a case where the regulatory paperwork and the operational reality do not line up. The entity is registered in the United Kingdom, founded in March 2023, and holds two licences on file — one from the FCA and one from CIMA. Yet the official domain listed in our records is yesyes123.cn, which is not a domain we can associate with any legitimate FOREX.com operation, and the company reports zero employees. These are red flags that we take seriously, and they shape the entire risk assessment below.

The legal name on file is StoneX Financial Ltd., registered in the United Kingdom, with a founding date of 3 March 2023. On paper, that sounds like a subsidiary of the well-known StoneX Group, which operates a legitimate FOREX.com brand in several jurisdictions. However, our records show zero employees and no verifiable website or social-media presence — both of which are highly unusual for a firm claiming to be part of a major financial group.

We attempted to reconcile the official domain, yesyes123.cn, with the StoneX brand. The domain does not resolve to any page that we could verify as belonging to StoneX or FOREX.com, and it is not referenced in any of the regulatory registers we consulted. In our experience, a newly registered entity with no staff, no working website, and a domain that does not match the brand is a classic setup for a clone or impersonator firm — one that borrows a reputable name to lend itself credibility.

Our records list two licences for this entity: an FCA Market Making (MM) licence with number 446717, and a CIMA Derivatives Trading License (EP) with number 25033. We quote these numbers exactly as they appear in our records, but we were not able to independently verify them against the live public registers at the time of writing. The FCA licence, if genuine, would place the firm under one of the world's strictest financial regulators, with requirements for client money segregation, capital adequacy, and access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) up to £85,000. The CIMA licence, by contrast, is an offshore derivatives licence that offers far weaker investor protections — no compensation scheme, lighter oversight, and typically no segregation requirement for client funds.

Here is the critical problem: the official domain yesyes123.cn does not match the domain we would expect from a firm regulated by the FCA. The FCA maintains a public register of authorised firms, and any firm using a misleading or unverified domain would be in breach of its rules. In FXCanary's assessment, the combination of a UK registration, an offshore CIMA licence, and an unverifiable domain is a serious red flag. Even if the FCA licence number is real, the operational setup suggests that the entity behind this website may not be the same as the licensed firm — a classic clone scenario.

We list the licences on file as follows:

• FCA | Market Making (MM) | licence no 446717 | status — | United Kingdom
• CIMA | Derivatives Trading License (EP) | licence no 25033 | status — | Cayman Islands

The FCA licence, if active, would authorise the firm to engage in market making and to hold client money under strict rules. The FCA regime requires firms to maintain adequate capital, to segregate client funds from their own, and to submit to regular audits. Clients of FCA-regulated firms also benefit from the FSCS, which protects deposits up to £85,000 per person per firm. That is a meaningful safety net for retail traders.

The CIMA licence, on the other hand, is an offshore derivatives licence that allows the firm to offer trading services to clients outside the UK. CIMA's regulatory regime is lighter: there is no compensation scheme, client money segregation is not always mandatory, and oversight is less intensive. For a firm that is registered in the UK but holds a CIMA licence, the practical effect is that clients who trade under the CIMA entity may have no recourse if the firm fails.

In our view, the presence of both licences on file is not inherently a problem — many legitimate brokers hold multiple licences to serve different regions. But when the official domain does not match the regulated brand, and when the firm has zero employees and no verifiable presence, the licences become suspect. We could not confirm that the entity operating yesyes123.cn is the same as the licensed StoneX Financial Ltd.

Our records do not provide specific account tiers, minimum deposits, or leverage figures for this entity. We attempted to find this information on the official website, but the domain yesyes123.cn did not resolve to a functional trading site during our review. This absence of verifiable account information is itself a red flag: a legitimate broker will typically publish its account types, minimum deposit, and leverage clearly on its website.

In the absence of concrete data, we can only describe what a typical FOREX.com account structure looks like, but we must stress that we have no evidence that this entity offers those terms. A standard FOREX.com account might include a retail account with leverage up to 1:30 under FCA rules, and a professional account with higher leverage, but we cannot confirm any of this for the entity under review. Traders who are approached with offers of very high leverage or unusually low minimum deposits should treat those offers with extreme caution, as they are common tactics used by clone firms to lure victims.

Again, our records do not specify which trading platforms this entity offers. The legitimate FOREX.com brand is known for its proprietary web platform and mobile apps, as well as MetaTrader 4 and MetaTrader 5 in some regions. However, we could not verify that the entity behind yesyes123.cn offers any of these platforms, because the website was not operational during our review.

For a trader, the platform is the primary interface with the market, and a legitimate broker will provide a stable, secure, and well-documented platform. If a broker directs you to download a platform from an unverified link, or if the platform behaves erratically, that is a major warning sign. In this case, we have no evidence that any platform is offered, which further undermines the credibility of the operation.

We have no verified information on the range of instruments this entity offers. The legitimate FOREX.com brand typically offers forex, indices, commodities, and cryptocurrencies, but we cannot confirm that this entity provides any of these. The lack of a functional website means we could not review product lists, spreads, or trading conditions.

For a trader, the range of instruments matters because it affects diversification and trading strategies. But more importantly, the absence of any verifiable product information is a sign that the broker is not operating transparently. A legitimate broker will publish its product range, along with typical spreads and execution policies, on its website. The fact that we found none of this for yesyes123.cn is deeply concerning.

Our records do not include any information on deposit methods, withdrawal procedures, or fees for this entity. We could not verify any payment processors, bank details, or fee schedules. In our experience, clone brokers often have vague or inconsistent payment information, and they may delay or refuse withdrawals.

Without verified data, we cannot comment on specific fees or processing times. However, we can say that a legitimate broker will clearly disclose its deposit and withdrawal methods, along with any associated fees, on its website. The absence of such information is a red flag. Traders should be especially wary of brokers that request payment to a personal bank account or a cryptocurrency wallet, as these are common signs of a scam.

Given the severe red flags we have identified, we cannot recommend this broker to any category of trader. Beginners, who are most vulnerable to clone scams, should avoid it entirely. Experienced traders who are tempted by the FOREX.com name should verify the official domain and regulatory status before depositing any funds. The legitimate FOREX.com operates under domains like forex.com, and any deviation from that should be treated as suspicious.

For scalpers and high-frequency traders, the lack of verifiable execution quality and platform stability is disqualifying. For swing traders and long-term investors, the risk of losing their entire deposit to a fraudulent operation far outweighs any potential benefit. In short, this broker suits no one, and we advise extreme caution to anyone who has been approached by this entity.

Our Scam Risk Score for this entity is 85 out of 100, which we classify as 'Severe'. This score is driven by three risk flags: the entity is listed as a 'Fake Broker' in industry watchdog records, it has been identified as a clone or impersonator firm, and it has no verifiable website or social-media presence. These flags are based on aggregated industry data and our own cross-checks, and they paint a clear picture of a high-risk operation.

In plain terms, this entity appears to be using the name and regulatory details of a legitimate firm (StoneX Financial Ltd.) to deceive traders. The official domain yesyes123.cn is not associated with the real FOREX.com brand, and the lack of any operational footprint — zero employees, no website, no social media — confirms that this is not a functioning broker. We strongly advise traders not to deposit any funds with this entity, and to report any solicitation to the relevant authorities.

If you have already engaged with this broker, we recommend that you cease all communication, do not make any further deposits, and contact your bank or payment provider to dispute any transactions. You should also file a complaint with the FCA and, if you are in the UK, with Action Fraud. The FCA maintains a list of unauthorised firms, and this entity should be reported so that it can be added to that list.