Oscar Markets Review

Our review of Oscar Markets began with the same discipline we apply to every broker that crosses our desk: we checked the public regulatory registers, we read the full user-review record across independent platforms, and we weighed the complaint and exposure data against the broker's own marketing claims. The picture that emerged is not a subtle one. Oscar Markets Limited presents itself as a trading firm with a prestigious Abu Dhabi Global Market address, yet our cross-checks found no verified licence on file with any regulator we consider credible.

We do not take a single negative review as proof of fraud, and we do not treat a clean record as proof of safety. But when the regulatory trail is empty, the user record is uniformly negative, and the complaints describe a consistent pattern of blocked withdrawals and vanished capital, the evidence demands a clear and cautious conclusion. In this review we lay out exactly what we found, what it means for a retail trader, and why FXCanary's Scam Risk Score of 75/100 – Severe – is the appropriate stance.

Oscar Markets Limited is registered at Level 8 – Al Sila Tower, Abu Dhabi Global Market, Al Maryah Island, P.O. Box 27522, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. On paper, that is a prestigious financial-centre address. In practice, a registered address is not the same as a regulated operation, and our analysis of the company's footprint found no evidence of a substantive trading business behind the letterhead.

The company's stated founding date is 19 February 2025, which makes Oscar Markets an extremely young entity at the time of this review. A new broker is not automatically a scam, but a brand-new firm with no regulatory licence, no track record, and a user record that is already dominated by fraud allegations is a combination that should give any trader pause. Our checks also found that the company lists zero employees in the structured data we hold, which is consistent with a shell operation rather than a functioning brokerage with support, compliance and dealing desks.

We cross-checked the address and the company name against the public register of the Abu Dhabi Global Market, which is the jurisdiction named on the registration. We found no evidence that Oscar Markets Limited holds a financial-services permission from that regulator. The address may be real, but the regulatory status does not match the impression the broker's marketing seeks to create. In our assessment, the gap between the claimed prestige of the address and the absence of any verifiable licence is a major red flag.

The single most important fact about Oscar Markets is that our review found no verified regulatory licence on file. The structured data we hold lists zero regulators and zero licences. That is not a minor omission; it is the difference between a broker that is accountable to a financial authority and one that is accountable to no one.

We checked the major registers that matter to retail traders – the FCA in the UK, ASIC in Australia, CySEC in Cyprus, and the Abu Dhabi Global Market's own register, given the company's stated address. In every case, we found no authorisation for Oscar Markets Limited. The broker's own marketing materials, as reflected in user complaints, claim an office in Abu Dhabi and imply regulatory standing, but the public record does not support that claim. One reviewer put it bluntly: 'Not regulated. Established to deceive people.'

For a trader, the absence of regulation means there is no client-fund protection scheme, no ombudsman to complain to, and no authority that can compel the broker to return your money. If a regulated broker fails, you may have recourse through a compensation scheme. If Oscar Markets fails – or simply decides not to pay – you have no such safety net. In our assessment, the lack of any licence is not a technicality; it is the core of the risk.

Oscar Markets offers four account tiers: ECN, Pro, Islamic, and Standard. The ECN account requires a minimum deposit of $10,000, the Pro account $5,000, while the Islamic and Standard accounts do not disclose a minimum deposit in the data we hold. The maximum leverage ranges from 1:500 on the ECN and Pro accounts to 1:1000 on the Islamic and Standard accounts.

On the surface, the ECN account with spreads from 0.0 pips looks attractive to experienced traders. But the high minimum deposit of $10,000 is a significant barrier that pushes retail clients into committing large sums to a broker with no regulatory oversight. The Pro account's $5,000 minimum is still substantial. In our view, these thresholds are not designed to attract serious institutional traders; they are designed to extract the maximum possible deposit from retail clients before the withdrawal problems begin.

The leverage of up to 1:1000 is another red flag. Reputable regulators cap leverage at 1:30 or 1:50 for retail clients precisely because extreme leverage amplifies losses and can wipe out an account in a single trade. A broker offering 1:1000 is targeting inexperienced traders who may not understand the risk, and in the context of the user complaints about 'wrong trades' and accounts being blown, the combination of high leverage and no regulation is dangerous. The Islamic account, which is typically swap-free, is a standard offering, but the lack of disclosed spreads and commissions makes it impossible to assess the true cost.

The structured data we hold does not disclose the deposit or withdrawal methods offered by Oscar Markets. That lack of transparency is itself a concern, because a broker that cannot or will not state how you can move money in and out is not giving you the information you need to make an informed decision.

What we do have is a user record that is uniformly negative on withdrawals. Three separate complaints describe the same pattern: deposits are accepted, profits are shown, and then withdrawal requests are ignored or rejected. One reviewer reported that their 'withdrawal requests bounced countless times' despite having invested a huge sum. Another stated they had more than $2,000 trapped in the account and could not withdraw it, and that the broker's UAE contact number was not working and emails went unanswered.

A third reviewer described a more alarming scenario: 'they didn't give withdrawal and capital also washed out … they have full control on meta 5 they open wrong trade they made my account -1800usd.' That complaint alleges not just a refusal to pay, but active manipulation of the trading platform to generate losses. We cannot verify the specific mechanics of that claim, but the consistency of the withdrawal complaints across multiple independent reviewers is damning. In our assessment, the evidence strongly suggests that Oscar Markets is not a broker that pays its clients.

The structured data we hold does not list the tradable instruments offered by Oscar Markets, nor does it name the trading platforms. The user reviews, however, make one thing clear: the platform in use is MetaTrader 5, which is a legitimate and widely used trading platform. The problem is not the software itself, but the way the broker allegedly uses it.

One reviewer explicitly stated that the broker has 'full control on meta 5' and that they 'open wrong trade' – an allegation that the broker or its agents can manipulate trades on the client's behalf. If true, that would mean the platform is not a neutral execution venue but a tool for generating losses that the broker can then use as a reason to deny withdrawals. We cannot confirm the technical mechanism, but the allegation is consistent with the broader pattern of complaints.

For a trader, the absence of a disclosed instrument list is a practical problem. You cannot assess whether the broker offers the markets you want to trade, nor can you compare spreads and execution quality. Combined with the platform manipulation allegations, the lack of transparency on instruments and platforms reinforces our view that Oscar Markets is not a broker you can trust with your capital.

On fees, Oscar Markets discloses very little. The ECN account advertises spreads from 0.0 pips, but the commission is not disclosed. The Pro account shows spreads from 0.8 pips, again with no commission figure. The Islamic and Standard accounts do not disclose spreads at all, and the Standard account lists commission as 'Free' – a claim that is meaningless without knowing the spread.

We cannot calculate an effective all-in cost for any of these accounts because the data is incomplete. That is a problem, because a broker that hides its fee structure is often hiding other things as well. In the context of the user complaints, the fee picture is secondary to the withdrawal problem, but it is still relevant: if you cannot determine the true cost of trading, you cannot determine whether the broker is competitive or simply using hidden fees to erode your balance.

The only mention of spreads and fees in the user reviews is part of a broader complaint about being shown profits that later proved impossible to withdraw. That suggests that the advertised low spreads are not the real story. In our assessment, the lack of fee transparency is another reason to avoid Oscar Markets.

The user-review record for Oscar Markets is small but remarkably consistent. Across the reviews we analysed, every single mention of scam concerns, withdrawals, customer support, platform, profit, and trust is negative. There are zero positive mentions in any of these categories. That is an unusual pattern, and it is not one we see with legitimate brokers, which typically have at least some satisfied clients.

The most serious allegations come from reviewers who describe the company as a 'fraud company' and a 'cheater'. One reviewer named specific sales agents – 'DIVYA' and 'SUMIT VINOD KUMAR' – and accused them of theft. Another reviewer said the company 'doesn't have an office in Abu Dhabi' and is 'established to deceive people.' These are not minor complaints about slippage or execution; they are allegations of deliberate fraud.

We also see a clear pattern in the withdrawal complaints: the broker shows profits on screen, encourages the client to invest more, and then refuses to honour withdrawal requests. One reviewer described being 'shown profits' for a long time after investing a huge sum, only to have every withdrawal request bounce. Another said their capital was 'washed out' after the broker allegedly opened wrong trades. The consistency of these stories – across different reviewers, different amounts, and different contact points – gives us confidence that the complaints reflect a real and systemic problem, not a one-off dispute.

When we compare our own analysis with aggregated industry data, the picture is consistent. The broker's Trustpilot score is 2.5 out of 5, based on just six reviews – a low score that is made worse by the fact that the reviews we analysed are almost entirely one-star. The Forex Peace Army score is listed as 'None', which typically means either no reviews or a score that is too low to display. In either case, it is not a positive signal.

Our own Scam Risk Score of 75/100 – Severe – is higher than the raw Trustpilot average might suggest, but that is because we weight the absence of regulation and the nature of the complaints more heavily than a simple average. A broker with no licence, a history of withdrawal refusals, and allegations of platform manipulation is not merely 'average' – it is a severe risk. The aggregated data supports our view: there is no evidence of any legitimate operation behind the Oscar Markets brand.

We also note that the user reviews mention the broker's claims of an Abu Dhabi office, which we could not verify. The address on file is in the Abu Dhabi Global Market, but a registered address is not proof of a physical office. In our assessment, the gap between the broker's marketing and the verifiable reality is a hallmark of a scam operation.

In our assessment, Oscar Markets is a severe risk to retail traders. The company has no verified regulatory licence, no disclosed fee structure, no clear list of instruments or platforms, and a user record that is uniformly negative, with multiple complaints about blocked withdrawals and alleged fraud. The Scam Risk Score of 75/100 reflects the gravity of these findings.

If you are considering Oscar Markets, our advice is simple: do not deposit any money. The evidence strongly suggests that you will not be able to withdraw your funds, and you have no regulatory protection to fall back on. If you have already deposited, we recommend that you stop trading immediately and attempt to withdraw whatever remains, while documenting all communications and transactions in case you need to pursue legal action.

We also advise traders to verify any broker's regulatory status before depositing, using the official registers of the FCA, ASIC, CySEC, or the Abu Dhabi Global Market. A legitimate broker will be happy to provide its licence number and will appear on the relevant register. Oscar Markets does not appear on any register we checked, and that absence is the most important fact in this review.