SolisMarkets Review

FXCanary's investigation of SolisMarkets began with a systematic cross‑check of every official and public‑facing detail we could obtain. We pulled the broker's South African registration records, interrogated the FSCA licence entry, and scoured aggregated industry databases for complaints, exposure alerts, and clone warnings. Simultaneously, we analysed the broker's own website for its stated company background, account tiers, funding disclosures, and instrument range.

We then turned to the real‑user record. Our editorial team examined 125 Trustpilot reviews, paying close attention to the topics traders actually discuss: withdrawals, customer support, platform stability, and profit‑related experiences. We also tracked social‑media and forum chatter, though Forex Peace Army yielded no entries. The aim was not to cherry‑pick soundbites but to understand the weight of evidence across multiple sources.

What emerged is a broker that wears a locally issued licence but operates with almost no corporate substance. The user feedback is split between enthusiastic five‑star praise and desperate one‑star accounts of blocked withdrawals. We weighed both sides against the objective data — a 52/100 Elevated Scam Risk Score — and concluded that any trader considering SolisMarkets should proceed with extreme caution.

According to its own disclosures, SolisMarkets is supported by Eklavya Asset Management LTD PTY, a South African entity that the broker claims was established in 2014. The registered address is in South Africa, and the sole regulatory filing we could verify is an FSCA derivatives‑trading licence. However, public business registries show the company has zero employees — a startling number for a brokerage that presents itself as a full‑service trading operation.

A zero‑employee count almost certainly means that the actual operational, sales, and support functions are outsourced or handled by undisclosed third parties. For a broker targeting retail clients with account minimums reaching $500,000, the absence of verifiable in‑house staff is a red flag. It raises questions about who exactly is managing client funds, executing orders, and responding when withdrawals are requested.

Furthermore, the broker's founding date on our file is listed as 8 May 2024, even though the supporting company claims a 2014 origin. This discrepancy could simply reflect a recent rebranding or the launch of the SolisMarkets trading name, but unless the broker provides full corporate lineage, traders are left dealing with a brand that lacks a transparent operational history.

SolisMarkets holds a single regulatory licence: FSCA number 45583, issued by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority of South Africa. The licence is described as a Derivatives Trading Licence (EP). The FSCA is a legitimate, G20‑recognised regulator, and South Africa's financial‑services framework does include some client‑protection measures, such as mandatory segregation of client funds and membership in the Financial Services Ombud scheme.

However, the licence we reviewed bears an important caveat: its regulatory status is not confirmed as active in the public registers we consulted. Industry databases and our own check of the FSCA portal could not verify that the licence is currently in good standing. For a trader, this means that even the single regulatory credential the broker displays may be stale or limited in scope. A derivatives trading licence does not necessarily cover the full spectrum of spot forex, CFD, or crypto offerings that SolisMarkets promotes.

Equally concerning is the absence of any additional licence in a major jurisdiction. Most reputable international brokers maintain at least one top‑tier licence — from the FCA, ASIC, CySEC, or similar. SolisMarkets has none. This leaves clients with recourse only to the South African regulator, and only if the licence is active and applicable to their account type. In our assessment, the regulatory profile is far too thin to inspire confidence for traders depositing significant sums.

The broker structures its offering around six account tiers, none of which is accessible to the average retail trader. The entry‑level Silver account demands a $5,000 minimum deposit and caps leverage at 1:50. From there, the Gold account doubles the minimum to $10,000, while the Premium, Premium Plus, Exclusive, and VIP tiers escalate to $50,000, $100,000, $250,000, and a staggering $500,000 respectively. Leverage is increased to 1:200 for the top four tiers — a combination of high leverage and high capital that inherently magnifies risk.

What is conspicuously absent from the broker's disclosures is any concrete information about spreads, commissions, or trading costs for any account level. In our structured data, every account type shows minimum spread and commission as "--". Traders cannot, therefore, compare the cost of trading across tiers or against competitors. The only fee‑related hints come from user reviews, and those paint a troubling picture: at least one reviewer reports seeing BTCUSD spreads of over $1,000, with additional fees layered on top without notice.

Without transparent pricing, the account structure appears designed to funnel traders into high‑deposit tiers with promises of better conditions, while the actual costs remain hidden until after funds are committed. This is a classic red flag in broker due diligence.

The broker does not publicly list any deposit or withdrawal methods. This absence of basic funding information is itself a warning signal. In our experience, trustworthy brokers clearly state which payment channels they support, any fees, and processing times. SolisMarkets offers none of that clarity.

The real‑user record fills this void with a deeply disturbing pattern: 19 withdrawal‑related complaints surface in our dataset, heavily skewed toward negative experiences. One reviewer writes, "Despite daily reminders for withdrawal of my money, they just do not reply … you deposit your money and then that is it, no withdrawals." Another says, "I have requested a withdrawal from my account since 2024, sent several follow‑up emails and this company has stopped responding."

There are positive mentions — a handful of traders claim withdrawals are prompt or that refund issues were resolved quickly — but the volume and intensity of negative accounts dominate the funding narrative. When a broker systematically fails to honour withdrawal requests, the most generous interpretation is operational dysfunction; the more realistic fear is that client funds are simply not available. For anyone considering a deposit, the aggregated complaint data should give serious pause.

The 125 Trustpilot reviews we analysed average out to 2.7 out of 5 — a score low enough to flag serious inconsistencies. Digging into the individual posts reveals a platform that inspires intense loyalty in some and utter despair in others. The positive camp cites fast execution on MT5, favourable spreads, responsive customer support, and profitable trading signals, especially for gold and indices. One five‑star reviewer calls SolisMarkets "one of the most complete platforms available," while another praises "quick and professional" admin communication.

On the opposite side, the complaints are not about minor platform glitches; they allege blocked withdrawals, unresponsive support after money is deposited, accounts being disabled without explanation, and aggressive up‑selling by agents who then disappear. A recurring theme is the surprise introduction of new terms after a deposit — one reviewer reports being told, only after seven days, that the initial period was a "trial" requiring an additional $1,000 to continue. Another claims agents convinced them to deposit $2,000, promised assistance, then vanished, resulting in total loss.

The contrast between the two sets of reviews is stark. Many of the glowing reviews use language that mirrors marketing copy, while the negative ones recount specific, detailed, and consistent financial harm. In our editorial judgement, the severity of the withdrawal‑blocking complaints outweighs the generalised praise. Authentic brokerages simply do not generate this volume of unresolved funding disputes.

Forty‑six reviewers discuss the platform and app experience. Positive comments applaud MT5 integration, fast execution, and a versatile product range. Speed‑related feedback is overwhelmingly positive: 13 of 19 mentions praise quick trade execution or swift support responses, with zero negative mentions in that category. This suggests that when the platform works, it appears to satisfy active traders.

Yet, the negative platform mentions cannot be ignored. Several one‑star reviews report being locked out of accounts entirely, with the broker's website seemingly down or missing. If even a small fraction of traders cannot access their funds and trading accounts, the platform's technical reliability is called into question — not its feature set.

Importantly, the broker does not disclose its own geographic server infrastructure, backup systems, or business continuity measures. Without this information, the fast execution praised by some could be delivered by a third‑party white‑label solution that provides little recourse if things go wrong. The total absence of independent uptime monitoring or transparency around the trading infrastructure leaves a gap that only trust in the broker can fill — and trust is precisely what the larger review record erodes.

The topic of spreads and fees surfaces in 15 reviews, but the information is contradictory. Six positive reviewers mention "very favourable spreads" or recovering fees through profitable trades. However, three negative reviews are far more specific: one warns of spreads that widened to over $1,000 on BTCUSD trades, plus extra fees layered on without notice, and another complains of sudden increases in spreads and fees starting November 2023.

The broker itself does not publish a fee schedule or live spread list. Without such transparency, there is no baseline against which a trader can verify what they are being charged. The broker's account table omits minimum spread and commission fields altogether. This lack of disclosure, combined with user reports of arbitrary fee changes, raises the prospect that trading costs are applied at the broker's discretion rather than according to a fixed, fair policy.

For a trader, hidden costs can erode profitability faster than adverse market moves. In a properly regulated environment, brokers are obligated to provide clear pre‑trade cost disclosures. SolisMarkets' failure to do so, coupled with the existing withdrawal complaints, suggests a business model that may rely more on trapping deposits than on transparent, repeatable trading revenue.

Our internal Scam Risk Score for SolisMarkets comes out at 52 out of 100, placing it in the Elevated risk category. This score is driven by the combination of an unconfirmed single licence, a zero‑employee corporate footprint, a near‑total absence of transparent pricing, and a lopsided complaint profile dominated by non‑payment allegations.

Public sentiment mirrors this caution. The broker's Trustpilot rating of 2.7 is substantially below the threshold that reputable forex brokers normally maintain. While no single aggregator is definitive, the consistency between our independent risk assessment and public sentiment reinforces the warning. Industry databases show zero clone‑site detections, which is one of the few positive datapoints — but that does little to offset the more pressing operational risks.

Traders should note that a 52 score is not an outright condemnation; it is a signal that the probability of encountering serious problems is unacceptably high. The broker's own positive followers would do well to consider how many of their fellow clients have already been locked out of their money.

SolisMarkets presents a classic high‑risk profile: one thin regulatory credential, minimal corporate substance, hidden costs, and a stream of unresolved withdrawal complaints. The positive reviews that exist cannot, in our assessment, outweigh the concrete accounts of traders who have been unable to recover their funds.

Any trader considering this broker should first verify the FSCA licence directly with the regulator to confirm its current status and scope. Even if it proves active, note that South African compensation schemes are limited and may be difficult for foreign traders to access. The high minimum deposits make the downside potentially catastrophic. We recommend starting with the smallest possible deposit if you decide to proceed at all, and testing the withdrawal system immediately — before committing large capital.

Our elevated risk score is not an instruction to avoid at all costs, but it is a strong recommendation to treat SolisMarkets as a speculative counterparty rather than a safe home for your trading funds. In a market well served by brokers with multiple tier‑1 licences and public fund‑protection insurance, the arguments for accepting the risks here are exceedingly thin.