INFINOX Review

FXCanary set out to verify every corner of INFINOX’s regulatory standing, operational history, and real-user experience before forming a verdict. We began by cross-checking the public registers of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Securities Commission of the Bahamas (SCB) to confirm the licences the broker claims to hold. In parallel, we examined aggregated industry databases for the broker’s corporate structure, registered address, and disclosed employee count.

We then turned to the candid record of trader feedback. Over 1,100 reviews on Trustpilot and numerous complaints lodged on independent forums gave us a granular view of what clients praise and what they protest. We sorted through 22 withdrawal-related complaints, seven flagged clone or impersonator sites, and over a dozen scam allegations to understand the real risks. Every figure cited in this review is drawn from that verified research; nothing is invented or assumed.

INFINOX Limited was founded in September 2017 and lists its registered address as Credentia International Management, Cyberati Lounge, Ground Floor, The Catalyst Building, 40 Cybercity, Ebene, Republic of Mauritius. This places the legal entity in a reputable business district of Mauritius, a jurisdiction known for hosting many forex brokers. The company’s official description positions it as an FCA-licensed FX and CFD broker offering online investment and trading services in forex, indices, commodities, and futures.

Intriguingly, industry databases record zero employees for the firm. While this figure may reflect a data-reporting quirk – given that the broker has operated since 2017 and maintains client-facing support – it nonetheless raises an eyebrow. A more granular public filing would be necessary to understand the true organisational scale. In our assessment, the absence of disclosed staff numbers contrasts with the broker’s presentation as a global operation, and we advise traders to treat this as a transparency gap rather than an immediate red flag.

INFINOX holds two regulatory licences: one from the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and one from the Securities Commission of the Bahamas (SCB). The FCA licence, number 501057, is an “Inst Market Making (MM)” permission granted to INFINOX Capital Ltd, a UK-registered entity. The FCA is a top-tier regulator with strict capital adequacy, client-fund segregation, and negative-balance protection rules, and it offers recourse through the Financial Ombudsman Service. For UK retail clients, this licence provides the strongest level of protection.

The second licence, SIA F-188 from the SCB, is a “Derivatives Trading License (MM)” and is classified as “Offshore Regulation.” The Bahamas is a lighter-touch jurisdiction compared to the FCA. While the SCB does require some compliance, its investor protections are less robust, and there is no equivalent to the UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme. This dual-licence model is common among brokers: the FCA licence covers UK/EEA clients under strict rules, while the SCB licence serves international traders under a more flexible framework. In our assessment, the presence of the FCA licence is a strong trust signal, but the SCB licence introduces a tiered client-protection structure that traders must understand before choosing which entity they are onboarded with.

INFINOX offers two account types: an ECN account and an STP account. Both are capped at a maximum leverage of 1:30 – a restriction typical of FCA-regulated brokers that adheres to ESMA intervention measures. The ECN account advertises minimum spreads from 0.2 pips and charges a commission from 3 GBP/3 EUR/3 USD/3 AUD per side. The STP account offers wider minimum spreads from 0.9 pips but no commission.

These account configurations suggest that INFINOX is targeting more experienced traders who can benefit from raw spreads on the ECN model, while the STP account serves those who prefer a simpler cost structure and are willing to trade with slightly higher spreads. The leverage cap of 1:30 is a double-edged sword: it reduces maximum risk for retail traders but may frustrate those seeking higher exposure. Notably, the broker does not publicly disclose a minimum deposit for either account, which leaves prospective clients unable to gauge accessibility. FXCanary views this as an oversight that could be rectified to improve transparency.

One of the most contentious aspects of INFINOX’s user record concerns withdrawals. Our count of 22 withdrawal-related complaints includes reports of funds not credited to trading accounts, prolonged KYC investigations holding up payout requests, and accounts being blocked without reason. For example, one user reported depositing $250 only for the funds never to land, and after a two-week struggle, the deposit was returned. Another recounted that a withdrawal request made in November 2025 remained unprocessed, with support citing an ongoing investigation.

Yet it is not all negative. Several traders described payouts as “fast” and praised the reliability of the withdrawal process over years of trading. The picture that emerges is one of inconsistency: a majority of users appear to complete withdrawals without incident, but a concerning minority encounter significant friction. Compounding this, the broker does not disclose its funding or withdrawal methods anywhere in the publicly available materials we could verify. For FXCanary, this lack of clarity is a notable transparency gap that heightens the importance of reading the detailed terms before funding an account.

INFINOX’s company description states that it provides trading in forex, indices, commodities, and futures. However, a complete list of tradable instruments is not disclosed in the structured data available to us. This makes it difficult to assess the breadth of the offering compared to competitors who publish detailed product schedules. For a broker that brands itself as a comprehensive FX and CFD provider, this omission is a missed opportunity to showcase its market access.

On a positive note, the broker supports both MetaTrader 4 (MT4) and MetaTrader 5 (MT5), the industry-standard platforms. MT4 remains the workhorse for automated trading via Expert Advisors, while MT5 offers additional timeframes, more order types, and a built-in economic calendar. User reviews frequently mention the stability of the platforms and the low latency required for EA execution. One reviewer explicitly praised “the execution speed” and “low latency” crucial for running EAs on MT5. We take this as evidence that, for the core platform experience, INFINOX generally meets trader expectations.

For ECN account holders, the all-in cost can be roughly estimated by adding the raw spread (from 0.2 pips) and the commission (from 3 units of the base currency per lot). For a standard EUR/USD lot on the ECN, this equates to a competitive cost structure that can rival other ECN brokers, provided the spreads reliably stay near that low end. The STP account, with no commission but spreads from 0.9 pips, may appeal to traders who prefer a single spread cost, though the all-in spread is usually wider than the ECN after commission.

User feedback on fees is generally positive, with multiple reviews noting “competitive spreads” and “good spreads.” Negative comments exist but are fewer, often tied to broader frustration with execution or withdrawal problems rather than the cost structure itself. Importantly, INFINOX does not publicly outline any additional fees such as inactivity charges, overnight swap mark-ups, or currency conversion fees. Until verified, traders should assume these fees may apply and request full fee schedules from support.

With over 1,100 Trustpilot reviews averaging 4.6 out of 5, INFINOX enjoys a strong public rating. Digging deeper into the topic-level breakdown, customer support is the most discussed theme (75 mentions), with 60 positive and 13 negative. Satisfied traders highlight “exceptionally helpful” support and “responsive” service, while detractors point to long wait times for live chat and slow responses to deposit issues. Platform and app feedback follows a similar pattern: 31 positive versus 18 negative, with some users experiencing login problems and others praising the user-friendly interface.

Withdrawals and profit payouts, however, reveal a more polarised picture. While many describe smooth and fast withdrawals, a troubling minority recount cases of blocked accounts, deleted profits, and unprocessed payout requests. One reviewer claimed that after generating $5,850 in profit, the company “suddenly … removed all my profits without providing any explanation.” Another said his late father was persuaded to buy Bitcoin worth $3,000 through a Nigerian branch and never saw returns. These allegations, coupled with 15 scam-concern posts and 22 withdrawal complaints, cannot be dismissed. FXCanary’s read is that the broker appears to deliver a good service to the majority, but when something goes wrong, the resolution process can be distressingly opaque.

Aggregated industry data gives INFINOX a Scam Risk Score of 20 out of 100, placing it in the “low risk” category. This score is consistent with the strong FCA licence and the generally positive Trustpilot rating. However, it is counterbalanced by the discovery of seven clone or impersonator websites attempting to piggyback on the INFINOX brand. The existence of clones is a red flag that traders must verify they are dealing with the legitimate entity by checking the domain against the official website and confirming the FCA registration number.

On Forex Peace Army, the broker has no rating, which suggests limited engagement on that particular forum. This absence means we rely more heavily on Trustpilot and independent complaint boards. The 22 withdrawal-related complaints we counted, while not enormous in absolute terms, are sufficient to lower the broker’s reliability score in our proprietary assessment. In our view, INFINOX is not a scam, but it has execution and support inconsistencies that raise the risk of a poor outcome, especially for traders who do not meticulously document every interaction.

INFINOX is a broker with a credible regulatory anchor – its FCA licence – which immediately separates it from the shadowy offshore-only operators. The low Scam Risk Score of 20/100 aligns with the weight of evidence that the firm is, in the main, a legitimate trading venue. For traders who can be onboarded under the FCA-regulated UK entity, the protections are robust, and the historic user feedback suggests a solid trading experience for the majority.

Yet the persistent pattern of withdrawal complaints, the undisclosed minimum deposits and funding methods, and the existence of multiple clone sites demand caution. We advise anyone considering INFINOX to take several concrete steps: verify the exact legal entity you are contracting with by checking the FCA register; read the terms and conditions thoroughly, especially regarding withdrawals and profit removal; start with a small deposit and test the withdrawal process before committing larger sums; and maintain records of all communications. If you encounter delays or unexplained actions, raise a formal complaint and, if necessary, escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service if you are a UK client. INFINOX is not a broker to walk into blindly, but with proper precautions, it may serve the needs of experienced traders who value ECN spreads and MT4/MT5 execution.