EC Markets
EC Markets trades through EC Markets Group Ltd, a UK company (Companies House #07601714, confirmed directly) incorporated in 2011 that operated under a different name — GCM Prime — from 2015 until GCM Prime went dormant/insolvent around 2017. London-based entrepreneur Xiaoliang Lyu then acquired the still-FCA-licensed dormant shell and relaunched it as EC Markets around 2020-2021. Marketing claims of "10+ years" of experience are technically anchored to that original 2011/2015 licensing history, not to the current brand or ownership's actual operating track record, which is closer to five years. The group holds real, primary-sourced licences across seven jurisdictions (FCA 571881, ASIC AFSL 414198, Mauritius FSC GB21200130, South Africa FSCA 51886, Seychelles FSA SD009, UAE CMA 20200000281, New Zealand FMA FSP197465) — but every account tier on its own trading-conditions page advertises up to 1:1000 leverage, a level incompatible with FCA/ASIC/CySEC-style retail caps, implying the default entity behind a generic affiliate signup like this one is the lighter-touch Mauritius or Seychelles entity rather than the FCA one. The most serious finding in this research is a recurring, multi-source complaint pattern — independently reported on Forex Peace Army and via a separate WikiFX exposure report — describing accounts being restricted specifically after profitable trading (not after losses), with EC Markets withholding both the original deposit and the profit and refusing release unless the client agrees their trading was "toxic," without disclosed trade-level analysis or contractual basis. One case cites a withheld $14,446 in profit; another a 3.5-month delay before funds were eventually returned. Separately, Trustpilot's own compliance system has flagged the global ecmarkets.com review profile with a "Breach of guidelines" warning and removed a number of fake reviews — a platform-level enforcement action, not just a user complaint. No deposit bonus, no-deposit bonus, or other promotion is currently offered by EC Markets, confirmed via its own site navigation and multiple independent aggregators — nothing was fabricated here to fill that gap.
Regulation is per entity, not per brand
Which entity you are onboarded to decides your regulator, protections and available leverage.
Trading conditions
Spreads are only comparable when sampled on the same day at the same account tier.
Source: EC Markets — official regulations/licences page · last checked Sep 26, 2026 · confidence Medium
no sample date on file
Source: EC Markets — official regulations/licences page · last checked Sep 26, 2026 · confidence Medium
Source: EC Markets — official regulations/licences page · last checked Sep 26, 2026 · confidence Medium
Source: EC Markets — official regulations/licences page · last checked Sep 26, 2026 · confidence Medium
Varies by entity and client jurisdiction.
Source: EC Markets — official regulations/licences page · last checked Sep 26, 2026 · confidence Medium
Markets & access
Source: EC Markets — official regulations/licences page · last checked Sep 26, 2026 · confidence Medium
Source: EC Markets — official regulations/licences page · last checked Sep 26, 2026 · confidence Medium
Source: EC Markets — official regulations/licences page · last checked Sep 26, 2026 · confidence Medium
Source: EC Markets — official regulations/licences page · last checked Sep 26, 2026 · confidence Medium
How this score was built
Each dimension is scored 0–100 with a written rationale and its own weight. No single unexplained star.
Real, primary-sourced licences across 7 jurisdictions (FCA, ASIC, FSC Mauritius, FSCA, FSA Seychelles, CMA UAE, FMA NZ) — genuinely broad on paper. Scored well below that breadth would normally earn because the FCA licence is a revived shell of a company (GCM Prime) that went dormant/insolvent in 2017 before being bought and rebranded circa 2020-21 — confirmed directly on UK Companies House — and because every advertised account tier shows 1:1000 leverage, incompatible with the tier-1 entities' real retail caps, implying most signups do not actually land on the FCA/ASIC entities at all.
Concrete, official per-account-tier figures (deposit, spread, commission, leverage) for all three account types — genuinely transparent on this specific dimension, one of the clearer cost breakdowns reviewed on this site.
The most serious finding in this record: a recurring, multi-source pattern (independent FPA forum threads and a separate WikiFX exposure report) of profitable accounts specifically being restricted, with deposits and profits withheld unless the client admits to unspecified "toxic trading" — no disclosed rule, trade analysis, or contractual basis cited in any account found. A withheld $14,446 profit and a 3.5-month withdrawal delay are both cited by name. This is a more specific, more serious pattern than generic withdrawal slowness and is among the most concerning funding findings on this site.
Standard MT4/MT5 stack with 100+ instruments; no specific execution-quality complaints (price manipulation, off-market quotes) were found distinct from the funding/account-freezing pattern already scored above.
Broad multi-entity reach across 7 jurisdictions on paper, though which entity a given signup actually lands on is unclear from the affiliate link alone.
No bonus exists to critique — a neutral, not negative, finding in itself. But the underlying dispute mechanism found (unilaterally declaring a client's trading "toxic" as leverage to withhold funds, with no disclosed criteria) is itself a real terms-fairness problem distinct from a simple processing delay, and it is what most directly explains the low funding_withdrawal score above.
Marketing claims of "10+ years" / "since 2012" rest on a 2011 incorporation and a 2015-2020 run as a different, since-dormant/insolvent brand (GCM Prime) — confirmed directly on Companies House. The current ownership and EC Markets brand itself has been operating for roughly five years, materially less than the headline claim implies.
Trustpilot sits at a middling ~3.2/5, but critically carries Trustpilot's own "Breach of guidelines" enforcement flag for fake reviews — a platform-level finding, not just a user complaint, directly comparable to the most serious review-integrity issue found elsewhere on this site (FundingTraders). ~28% one-star reviews concentrate on withdrawals, verification delays and account closures.
What readers report
Member reviews are kept separate from our editorial assessment and from the provider score — they are moderated, not curated for tone.
No approved member reviews yet. An empty review list is not a negative signal — it means nobody has published one here.
Write a review
Where this data came from
If a field is missing here, treat it as unverified rather than as a negative.
- EC Markets — official regulations/licences pageofficial · primary · captured Sep 26, 2026
- UK Companies House — EC MARKETS GROUP LTD company recordregulator · primary · captured Sep 26, 2026
- Finance Magnates / FX News Group — GCM Prime insolvency and acquisition/rebrand as EC Marketspress · primary · captured Sep 26, 2026
- EC Markets — official account-types pageofficial · primary · captured Sep 26, 2026
- Aggregator consensus — EC Markets currently offers no deposit bonus/promotioncommunity · secondary · captured Sep 26, 2026
- Trustpilot — ecmarkets.com review aggregate, incl. a "Breach of guidelines" enforcement flagcommunity · secondary · captured Sep 26, 2026
- Forex Peace Army + WikiFX — recurring "profit-blocking via forced toxic-trading admission" complaint patterncommunity · secondary · captured Sep 26, 2026
Editor note: The GCM Prime → EC Markets ownership history is unusually well-documented (direct Companies House confirmation plus contemporaneous press coverage) and is the single most load-bearing fact in this record — it directly undercuts the "10+ years" marketing claim and explains why the FCA licence, while real, should not be read as a clean multi-decade track record under current ownership. The withdrawal-blocking complaint pattern is corroborated across two independent platforms (FPA, WikiFX) with named specifics ($14,446, 3.5 months), which is stronger corroboration than a single-source complaint, but still short of a confirmed regulator enforcement action — re-check against the FCA's own register and enforcement log directly before upgrading confidence further.