Quick Summary
AAA Profit Analytics Private Limited is a Kerala-based investment advisory firm led by founder Sajeesh Krishnan K, a Fellow Chartered Accountant. The firm holds SEBI registration number INH200009193 and BSE enlistment number 5525. Four plans are available ranging from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 35,400. The app has a 3.5-star rating on Google Play. Eight independent Google reviewers describe concerns including trap-like recommendation patterns, losses of up to Rs. 6 lakh, ignored stop-losses, targets that took two years to not reach, and selective disclosure of only profitable calls.
AAA Profit Analytics received 5 formal complaints in two financial years, 4 in FY 2023-24 and 1 in FY 2024-25.
All five are marked as resolved.
But eight independent Google reviewers, writing across different years, tell a more detailed story about what paying subscribers actually experienced.
This page covers the firm’s registration, complaint data, all eight user accounts in full, and what the pattern across them means before you pay.
AAA Profit Analytics SEBI Registration and Firm Overview
AAA Profit Analytics Private Limited holds SEBI Research Analyst registration INH200009193.
The firm is led by founder Sajeesh Krishnan K, a Fellow Chartered Accountant with over two decades of market experience.
A quick SEBI registration check on the regulator’s own portal takes under two minutes, and it’s the single most useful habit before paying any advisory firm.
The firm is also BSE-enlisted under number 5525.
The digital presence includes an official website, a YouTube channel with approximately 38,800 subscribers, an Instagram page, a Facebook page with around 4,900 followers, a Telegram channel with around 1,116 subscribers, and a mobile application available on Google Play.
The app currently holds a 3.5-star rating on Google Play. That is not critically low, but it is also not what a firm with 25-plus years of claimed market experience should be producing from its user base.
The firm’s four subscription plans, including exact GST amounts and what each plan delivers, are covered in full on the AAA Profit Analytics services page.
AAA Profit Analytics Complaint Data
SEBI requires every registered Research Analyst to publish investor complaint data monthly.
Here is what AAA Profit Analytics has disclosed.
Annual Complaint Summary
| Financial Year | Carried Forward | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2025-26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Monthly Data (April 2025 to June 2026): Nil across every category.
Two things stand out in this data.
First, five formal complaints across two years means five investors felt strongly enough to go through the formal SEBI process.
All five were resolved. But resolved means the firm submitted a formal response, not that the investor was satisfied.
Second, the annual data shows 4 complaints resolved in FY 2023-24 with zero received that year.
That is arithmetically unusual, likely meaning they were carried forward from a prior period not shown, or the data entry is inconsistent. Either way, it deserves direct verification with the firm.
AAA Profit Analytics Reviews India
These reviews are from named users on Google’s public review platform. We are reporting what they wrote.
We have not independently verified the specific trades described.
No SEBI order confirming these specific allegations has been issued as of the date of this review.
Review 1. Tom Mathew: Trap-Like Recommendation Pattern
Tom Mathew wrote a detailed cautionary review urging readers to think carefully before subscribing.
He alleged that the firm distributes the same fundamentally strong stock under multiple names such as Diamond Pick or Golden Pick to different subscriber groups.
He also claimed that on recommendation days, prices often hit upper circuits, creating false urgency for late buyers who then get stuck holding shares.
If accurate, this pattern raises a specific question about SEBI’s disclosure norms, which require research analysts to communicate risk clearly rather than create artificial urgency.
Review 2. Mahin Ahmad: Target vs Actual Loss Mismatch
Mahin Ahmad posted a detailed one-star review citing specific stocks.
He claimed the firm’s stated target was around 15%, yet actual losses on certain positions ran far higher.
He cited Sequent at negative 47%, Advanced Enzymes at negative 28%, and EPL near negative 29.5%.
He added that some of these positions remained open for more than a year without resolution.
Under SEBI regulations, every recommendation should carry a realistic risk profile matching its stated target.
A wide gap between projected outcome and actual performance is exactly the kind of concern regulatory complaint channels exist to examine.
Review 3. Sebin MS: Missing Stop-Loss and No Follow-Up
Sebin MS left a pointed one-star review accompanied by a screenshot of his holdings.
He alleged the firm does not maintain proper stop-loss discipline on recommended trades, leaving positions exposed to deeper losses.
He also claimed that once a stock was suggested, there was little to no follow-up communication afterward.
SEBI’s research analyst framework expects consistent guidance throughout a trade, not just at the point of recommendation.
Review 4. Sujith: Two-Year Timeline Mismatch
A Local Guide named Sujith described his experience with the AAA Swing Delivery plan.
He said he was promised a three-month timeframe yet ended up holding the recommended stock for two full years without the target being reached.
He further claimed that raising concerns with the firm led to a poor response and an unpleasant interaction with ownership.
Timeline transparency matters specifically here.
When a stated holding period stretches years beyond what was promised, subscribers reasonably start questioning the accuracy of the original call.
Review 5. Anil Kumar: High Entry Price Concern
Anil Kumar shared a more analytical critique focused on pricing strategy within swing delivery and wealth builder plans.
He suggested that stocks recommended within these premium packs were often already trading at elevated levels before being shared with subscribers.
He explained that this timing meant subscribers buying at higher prices faced steeper risk if the stock later corrected.
Entry price timing genuinely affects outcomes.
A recommendation shared after a significant price run-up carries very different risk from one shared near support levels.
Review 6. Vinod: Selective Disclosure of Profitable Calls Only
A Local Guide named Vinod posted a more general observation based on YouTube content and friends’ subscription experiences.
He noted that promotional content tends to highlight profitable calls while overall performance and potential losses stay largely undisclosed.
He also pointed out that strong results during a bull market do not necessarily reflect how a service performs across different market cycles.
Review 7. Prince Mammen: “Big Loss” After Subscribing
Left a 1-star review on 28 July 2021, stating simply: “I subscribed to this service and end up in big lose.”
Short as it is, this review carries real weight for one reason: 12 separate people found it helpful enough to mark it.
That’s not one disgruntled subscriber venting once; it’s several readers who saw their own experience reflected in his one line, which is exactly the kind of pattern worth taking seriously even without extra detail.
Review 8. Rinash Mohamed: Below 50% Accuracy and Rs. 6 Lakh Loss
Rinash Mohamed shared a detailed account describing daily call subscriptions.
He claimed the accuracy of these calls stayed below 50% and that he lost close to Rs. 6 lakh within just a couple of weeks of following them.
He added that his own personal research and chart analysis performed better than the paid recommendations.
SEBI expects research analysts to maintain reasonable diligence behind every call.
A sustained pattern of poor accuracy on paid recommendations is a legitimate reason to escalate concerns formally.
AAA Profit Analytics Reviews: The Common Pattern
These eight accounts were written across different years, by different people, describing different situations. None of them know each other.
Yet the same concerns appear repeatedly.
Recommendations that look strong at pitch but underperform after payment. Stop-loss discipline missing after entry.
Follow-up communication disappearing once a position is losing. Promotional content showing only what worked while hiding what did not.
That consistency across independent accounts is the most important thing on this page.
It does not prove misconduct. No SEBI order confirming any of these specific allegations has been issued.
But it does tell you that the gap between the marketing experience and the subscriber experience has been documented by multiple people independently.
One more real, related pattern worth checking: the firm’s own YouTube channel, covered in full on our page on AAA Profit Analytics YouTube, specifically what SEBI expects from video content naming stocks.
What to Do If Your Experience Matches Any of These Reviews?
If what you have experienced with AAA Profit Analytics resembles any of the eight accounts above, you are not dealing with a personal one-off problem.
You are dealing with a documented pattern that other investors have experienced and formally reported.
The formal complaint process for Research Analyst disputes starts with a written internal complaint, escalates to SEBI SCORES under registration number INH200009193, then to SMART ODR, and finally to arbitration if needed. Every stage is free.
The complete step-by-step complaint guide, covering exactly what evidence to collect and how to file at every stage, is on our AAA Profit Analytics complaints page.
Not sure whether your situation qualifies, or whether your evidence is strong enough?
We will review your case, identify every applicable SEBI violation, draft the SEBI SCORES complaint, and represent you through SMART ODR and arbitration.
Conclusion
AAA Profit Analytics holds genuine SEBI registration INH200009193. Five formal complaints in two years were all resolved. The monthly data for the most recent 15 months shows nothing pending.
Eight independent Google reviewers describe a consistent pattern across different years and different situations.
Trap-like recommendation patterns. Rs. 6 lakh losses. Stop-losses ignored. Two-year waits on three-month promises. Selective profit-only disclosure.
Registration and resolved complaints are one side of the picture. Eight independent accounts describing the same patterns are another.
Read both before you pay.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. The firm holds SEBI Research Analyst registration INH200009193 and BSE enlistment number 5525. The registered firm is led by Sajeesh Krishnan K, a Fellow Chartered Accountant. Verify the current status independently at sebi.gov.in under the Research Analyst intermediary category.
Five formal complaints appear in SEBI disclosure data. Four were resolved in FY 2023-24 and one in FY 2024-25. The most recent 15 months of monthly data show no new complaints. All five are marked resolved, meaning the firm submitted a formal response, not necessarily that investors were satisfied.
Many investors share experiences through public reviews rather than formal regulatory channels. SEBI SCORES only captures complaints formally filed through that system. A low official count and a pattern of negative reviews can exist simultaneously without contradicting each other. The two sources measure different things.
Rinash Mohamed's review describes paid daily call subscriptions with accuracy staying below 50%, resulting in a loss of approximately Rs. 6 lakh within weeks. SEBI expects research analysts to maintain reasonable diligence behind every call. Sustained poor accuracy on paid recommendations is a legitimate complaint ground.
Verify registration INH200009193 at sebi.gov.in. Read independent reviews in full rather than only the firm's own marketing. Ask the firm in writing what stop-loss discipline is maintained on each recommendation and what the follow-up process looks like after entry.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
