Auralyex Review 2026: Blocked in Italy, and the Same Website as Orbisolyx
CONSOB ordered Italian internet providers to block auralyex.co under resolution 23999 in May 2026, for offering investment services to the Italian public without authorisation. The site names no regulator, no company and no terms, and runs the same template as Orbisolyx. We score it 0.9 out of 10.
Quick facts
| Legal entity | None named anywhere on the site |
|---|---|
| Regulator | Unlicensed |
| Licence number | None. No regulator is named at all |
| Headquarters | Not published |
| Minimum deposit | € 3,000 |
| Maximum leverage | Not published |
| Withdrawal time | Not published |
| Segregated funds | Not claimed |
| Website | auralyex.conot linked: see our verdict |
Auralyex’s entire homepage is about 1,800 characters long. There is no regulator named on it, no company, no address, no licence number, no account tiers, no leverage figure and no pricing. There is a login button.
That is not an oversight. As the rest of this review sets out, it is a template, and the same template is running under at least one other brand.
What CONSOB did
CONSOB is Italy’s securities regulator. Unlike most authorities, which publish a warning and leave it there, CONSOB has the power to order Italian internet service providers to block a website outright, under article 7-octies of legislative decree 58/1998.
It used that power here. Resolution 23999, dated May 2026, names www.auralyex.co and webtrader.possares-renoyx.com.
CONSOB’s stated reason, in the standard formula it applies to these orders:
l’operatività in esame si configura quale esercizio professionale verso il pubblico italiano di servizi di investimento in violazione dell’art. 18, comma 1, del Tuf
“the activity under examination constitutes the professional provision, to the Italian public, of investment services in breach of article 18, paragraph 1, of the TUF.”
A blocking order is a stronger signal than a warning. A warning says the regulator believes a firm is unauthorised. A blocking order says the regulator has decided the fastest remedy is to make the site unreachable from Italy.
The same website, twice
Orbisolyx was blocked by CONSOB in the same sitting, under the adjacent resolution number. We read both sites on 18 September 2026, and they are the same build.
Here are the section headings of each homepage, in the order they appear:
| Orbisolyx (English) | Auralyex (Italian) | Literal translation |
|---|---|---|
| Making Trading Effortless | Il trading remoto reso semplice | Remote trading made simple |
| Reliable Safety Protocols | Protocolli di sicurezza rigorosi | Strict security protocols |
| Access to Multiple Assets | Moltitudine di opzioni di trading | A multitude of trading options |
| Flexible Account Choices | Varietà di account eccezionale | Exceptional account variety |
| Supporting Trader Development | Una piattaforma incentrata sulla crescita | A platform focused on growth |
| Aiming to succeed in the digital trading space? | Se vuoi davvero avere successo nel tuo percorso di trading online… | If you really want to succeed in your online trading journey… |
Six headings, same order, same meaning. The opening paragraph matches too: “Online trading isn’t what it once was. With services like Orbisolyx, traders can access a wide range of functions to trade with ease” against “Il mondo del trading online è cambiato notevolmente. Ora i trader hanno accesso a un’ampia gamma di funzionalità che li aiutano a operare in modo fluido ed efficace.”
The rest of the fingerprint lines up:
- Same URL structure. Both serve the homepage from
/en/homeand/it/homerather than the root. - Same footer format. “Copyright © 2025 Orbisolyx All rights reserved.” and “Copyright © 2025 Auralyex Tutti i diritti riservati.” Both dated 2025.
- Same size. Around 1,500 and 1,800 characters of text on the entire homepage.
- Same brand shape. Both invented Latinate names ending in
-yx. - Same portal trick, described below.
One detail gives away how quickly this was assembled. Auralyex’s /en/home page serves Italian. The English path exists, the language switcher is wired up, and the content behind it was never translated. Somebody cloned a template, changed the brand name, and did not check the second language.
The deposit portal is on a domain with no connection to the brand
This is the part worth understanding, because it defeats the check most careful people actually run.
CONSOB’s resolution names two web addresses for each of these firms. One is the marketing site. The other is where clients log in and deposit:
| Brand | Marketing site | Where you actually deposit |
|---|---|---|
| Auralyex | auralyex.co |
webtrader.possares-renoyx.com |
| Orbisolyx | orbisolyx.com |
webtrader.grumblinion-radiex.com |
Read those second-column entries again. Possares-renoyx. Grumblinion-radiex. Neither contains the brand name. Neither is a word. Neither means anything.
That is not laziness, it is the point. A person who is told to check a broker before depositing will usually search the brand name, and might search the domain on the page they first landed on. Almost nobody re-runs the check on the URL in the address bar after they have clicked through to the account area. So the domain that takes the money is one nobody searches, and it can be replaced next month without touching the brand.
Three other firms in the same CONSOB batches use the identical architecture: Activ Markets deposits through ac-markets-webtraderplatform.org, Investenix through investenixpro.com, and MRX Capital Trading through mrxspectron-markets.com. In MRX’s case CONSOB names only the portal domain, which means by the time the regulator acted, the marketing site it came from had already gone.
What the site does not say
| What we check on every broker | What Auralyex publishes |
|---|---|
| Regulator | None named |
| Licence number | None |
| Legal entity | None |
| Company registration number | None |
| Registered address | None |
| Account tiers or minimum deposit | None |
| Maximum leverage | None |
| Spreads or commission | None |
| Named payment methods | None |
| Terms and conditions | None found |
We score the regulation and transparency pillars slightly above the outright fabricators for one reason, and it is a real distinction. A firm that prints a licence number it does not hold has told you something false. Auralyex has told you nothing. That is not honesty, but it is not a lie either, and the scale should distinguish the two.
What the score is made of
| Pillar | Weight | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulation and licence tier | 30% | 0.4 | A CONSOB blocking order; no regulator claimed or held |
| Fund safety and withdrawals | 25% | 0.4 | No entity, no segregation claim, deposits on an unbranded domain |
| Cost and execution | 15% | 2.0 | Nothing published to assess |
| Transparency | 15% | 0.6 | Publishes nothing, but states nothing untrue |
| Complaint record | 10% | 2.0 | A blocking order rather than a warning, which is the stronger action |
| Platform and support | 5% | 2.0 | No contact channel published at all |
0.9 out of 10. Orbisolyx scores the same, and that is the accurate answer rather than a lazy one, because it is the same website.
If you have already deposited
- Stop, and treat any payment demanded before a withdrawal as the fraud rather than a step towards one.
- Check your bank statement for the name that actually took the money. Because deposits run through
possares-renoyx.com, the name on your statement is unlikely to be Auralyex. That name is what your bank needs. - Screenshot the site now, including the URL bar on the portal.
- Card payments: ask your bank about a chargeback for services not provided, usually within 120 days. Cite CONSOB resolution 23999 by number.
- Bank transfers: request a recall immediately.
- Report it to CONSOB if you are in Italy, and to your own national regulator elsewhere. A blocking order covers Italy only, so the site remains reachable almost everywhere else.
- Refuse recovery offers.
The check worth learning
When you click from a broker’s website through to the account or deposit area, look at the address bar again. If the domain changed, and especially if the new one has nothing to do with the brand, that is the company taking your money, and it is the string you should be searching.
The wider pattern, and the other firms running the same architecture, is in our investigation into the template factory.
Answered in detail
Safer alternatives
Rated Trusted or Neutral against the same six pillars. These link to our own reviews, not to the brokers, and no broker can pay to appear here.