Quick Summary
Max Pro Capital Advisory is a SEBI Research Analyst registration held by Ramprasad Omprakash Mundada, INH000010690, an individual registration based in Maharashtra. The pricing page shows several plans marked down from a struck-through original price, with the yearly Premium Member plan discounted by 87.5 percent against its listed original. The same page carries four different phone numbers across its buy buttons, with no explanation of which one connects to the official proprietor. The firm’s complaint disclosure is genuinely well kept where data exists, with the monthly trend and annual tables agreeing on 7 complaints received and 7 resolved since 2022, though the published data stops at June 2026 and has not been updated since.
Max Pro Capital Advisory is registered with SEBI to Ramprasad Omprakash Mundada under registration number INH000010690, an individual Research Analyst registration.
The registration is genuine. What is worth a closer look is the pricing page, where a yearly plan is marked down by more than 87 percent from a listed original price, and the buy buttons across that same page connect to four different phone numbers with no explanation of which is official.
This page works through the registration, the pricing pattern, the multiple contact numbers, and the complaint disclosure, which is one of the more cleanly kept records reviewed on this site.
Max Pro Capital Advisory Review
Max Pro Capital Advisory describes itself as a stock market research advisory providing recommendations across Equity, Stock Options, Stock Futures, Index Options and Index Futures.
The site states its analysts break down complex market information into clear, actionable recommendations, aimed at both experienced investors and people new to trading.
Its stated vision is to be a trusted partner in market analysis, and its stated mission is to support informed decision-making through research and strategic insight.
The site displays three client testimonials by first name, describing positive experiences with option trading recommendations and analysis.
One specifically describes getting good profit with small capital, language that sits close to a performance claim even where it is a client’s own words being displayed rather than the firm’s.
We are reporting what these testimonials say on the firm’s own site. We are not independently verifying the accounts behind them, and no SEBI order confirming or disputing them has been issued as of this writing.
None of this establishes wrongdoing, and nothing further on this page does either.
Where a registered analyst’s conduct does cross a line, the formal escalation route is covered in full further down this page.
Is Max Pro Capital Advisory SEBI Registered?
Yes, and the registration is confirmed on SEBI’s own published Research Analyst list under the name below.
| Detail | Information |
| Name of RA | Max Pro Capital Advisory |
| Proprietor | Ramprasad Omprakash Mundada |
| SEBI Registration Number | INH000010690 |
| Type of Registration | Individual |
| BSE Enlistment No. | 5667 |
| Validity | 9 November 2022, Perpetual |
What the INH Prefix Permits
The INH prefix marks a Research Analyst. It permits publishing research and issuing recommendations to a subscriber base.
It does not permit personalised advice built around an individual client’s income, goals or holdings, trade execution, or portfolio management.
The Registered Address Names Two Different Districts
The firm’s footer lists its address as House No. 31255, Geeta Niwas, Dhoki Road, Shivaji Chowk, Kallam, Latur, Maharashtra 413507.
On the same page, the separate Customer Support section lists the location simply as Osmanabad, Maharashtra.
Kallam is a town most commonly associated with Osmanabad district rather than Latur, so this reads as an inconsistency within the firm’s own published material rather than two genuinely different locations.
Verify the exact address directly against the SEBI intermediary register before sending anything formal, since a mismatched district could affect where a notice is treated as delivered.
Why Does the Max Pro Capital Pricing Page Show Four Different Phone Numbers?
This is worth flagging clearly, because a single registered individual analyst would ordinarily be reached through one consistent contact point, not several.
The proprietor’s registered contact number appears consistently in the site’s footer and disclosure section.
On the packages page itself, the picture is different.
1. The Header Call Button Uses A Different Number
The site header carries a Call Us button with a number that does not appear anywhere in the firm’s registered contact details.
2. One Specific Package’s Buy Button Uses A Third Number
The Royal Package, priced at ₹8,999 monthly, has its own Buy Now button linking to a third number distinct from both the registered contact and the header call button.
3. A Floating Contact Widget Uses A Fourth Number
A persistent call and WhatsApp widget visible across the site links to a fourth number.
None of these three additional numbers are explained anywhere on the site.
They may belong to the same proprietor using different lines for different purposes, or they may connect to sales staff or associates. Nothing on the page says which.
Before calling any number to subscribe, confirm you are speaking with Ramprasad Omprakash Mundada directly, or ask whoever answers to state their name and role, and keep a record of that confirmation.
If a recommendation, a fee, or an instruction to hold a position later comes from a number you cannot tie back to the registered proprietor, that gap matters if a dispute arises.
Max Pro Capital Pricing and the ₹1,51,000 SEBI Fee Cap
The pricing page carries two separate issues worth treating one at a time: the size of the discounts shown, and whether any plan breaches the fee ceiling.
A Research Analyst may charge a maximum of ₹1,51,000 per annum per family for individual and HUF clients who are not accredited investors.
The Published Price List, As Shown
| Package | Original Price Shown | Actual Price | Discount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premium Package | Not shown | ₹44,250 | N/A |
| Royal Package | ₹12,500 + GST | ₹8,999/Monthly | 28% |
| Special Package | Not shown | ₹1,78,000 | N/A |
| Premium Member, Monthly | ₹5,999 | ₹2,999 | 50% |
| Premium Member, 3 Months | ₹17,999 | ₹6,999 | 61% |
| Premium Member, 6 Months | ₹71,999 | ₹11,499 | 84% |
| Premium Member, Yearly | ₹1,43,999 | ₹17,999 | 87.5% |
| Expiry Trades, 3 Months | ₹11,997 | ₹8,999 | 25% |
| Expiry Trades, 6 Months | ₹24,000 | ₹13,999 | 42% |
| Expiry Trades, Yearly | ₹48,666 | ₹19,999 | 59% |
Premium Member and Expiry Trades Overlap Almost Entirely
Beyond the discounting, the two plan families themselves are hard to tell apart.
Both Premium Member and Expiry Trades promise 2 to 5 intraday recommendations with entry, target, and stop loss, and both are pitched around Nifty and Sensex trades.
The distinction the names imply, one built around general intraday calls and the other around expiry-specific option trades, is not spelled out anywhere in the feature list.
A prospective client comparing the two has to guess which one actually fits their trading style, or ask directly.
What does “Plans are as per Calendar Days” mean in practice?
Several plans carry the note “Plans are as per Calendar Days” without further explanation.
Markets do not run every calendar day, so a monthly plan measured in calendar days delivers noticeably fewer trading days of actual recommendations than the same plan measured in trading days would.
That is not necessarily unfair, but it changes the real value of a subscription, and it is worth confirming in writing how many trading days a given plan actually covers before paying.
The Discount Pattern Is Worth Reading As A Pattern, Not Plan By Plan
The discount percentage climbs steadily with the length of the plan.
The Premium Member monthly plan is discounted 50 percent, the 3-month plan 61 percent, the 6-month plan 84 percent, and the yearly plan 87.5 percent, a struck-through figure of ₹1,43,999 reduced to ₹17,999.
A discount that grows this sharply with plan length, rather than staying roughly consistent, is a pattern worth asking about directly.
It may reflect a genuine strategy of pricing longer commitments more attractively.
It may also mean the struck-through figure was set at a level nobody was ever expected to pay, making the discount a display device rather than a real price history.
We are not asserting which explanation applies here.
What we can say is that nothing on the page explains the original figures or confirms they were ever actually charged, and that is worth asking the firm directly before treating either number as meaningful.
Whether Any Plan Breaches the Fee Cap
The Special Package, priced at ₹1,78,000, states no duration anywhere on the page.
If this price covers a year or any period shorter than a year, it exceeds the ₹1,51,000 annual ceiling on its own, with no combination of other plans required.
None of the remaining plans, taken on their discounted price alone, breach the ceiling even at their highest annualised reading.
The Premium Package at ₹44,250 and the Royal Package at ₹8,999 monthly, renewed for a full year at ₹1,07,988, both stay under the limit.
Before paying for the Special Package specifically, get the exact duration in writing and confirm your client category, since an undisclosed duration on a price this high makes it impossible to check compliance from the page alone.
One protection applies regardless of price.
On early termination, a client is entitled to a proportionate refund for the unexpired period, though several of the discounted plans state no refund as per terms and conditions directly in their own feature list, while other plans on the same page make no such statement at all.
That inconsistency is worth resolving in writing before you pay, since which condition applies to your specific plan should not be a guess.
What Does Max Pro Capital’s Complaint Data Show?
This is the part of the page that deserves genuine credit, and it would be inaccurate to present it any other way.
Current Month Complaint Data
| Received From | Pending at End of Last Month | Received | Resolved | Total Pending | Pending Over 3 Months | Avg. Resolution Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Directly from Investors | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| SEBI (SCORES) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Other Sources | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Grand Total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A |
Complaints Across the Full Monthly Trend, Months with Activity
| Month | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|
| September 2024 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| February 2025 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| September 2025 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Grand Total (all months) | 7 | 7 | 0 |
Annual Complaint Trend
| Financial Year | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-23 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2023-24 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| 2025-26 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2026-27 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grand Total | 7 | 7 | 0 |
All three tables agree with each other exactly. The 6 complaints falling in FY2024-25 match the September 2024 and February 2025 entries in the monthly trend, added together.
The 1 complaint in FY2025-26 matches the September 2025 entry.
The running total of 7 received and 7 resolved is consistent across the current month table’s cumulative context, the monthly trend, and the annual table.
That level of internal consistency is genuinely uncommon among the firms reviewed on this site, and it deserves to be stated plainly rather than searched for a problem that is not there.
Seven complaints since November 2022, all resolved, none pending, is a light and well-documented record.
That credit comes with one qualifier. The monthly trend table’s most recent entry is June 2026, and as of this writing, the current period has moved well past that.
SEBI requires complaint data to be updated by the 7th of the following month, and a gap running into July and August 2026 with no published figures means the disclosure, however clean, is not currently up to date.
The numbers that exist reconcile well. Whether that remains true for the months not yet shown cannot be confirmed from the page as it stands.
One further point of housekeeping is worth a brief mention.
The serial numbers in the monthly trend table skip from 41 to 43, and the annual table lists its five rows out of numerical order.
Neither affects the figures themselves, and both look like table formatting slips rather than anything substantive.
What Does the “7 Years Experience” Claim Actually Cover?
The site’s “Why Choose Us” section states the analyst carries 7 years of experience, with 2 years specifically as a Research Analyst.
Read quickly, a headline figure of 7 years can suggest 7 years of registered analyst experience.
The site’s own qualifying detail clarifies that the specific research analyst tenure is 2 years, with the broader 7-year figure presumably covering other market experience before registration.
This is not a false claim.
It is a claim that rewards reading the full sentence rather than the headline number, and it is worth knowing which figure describes what before weighing it as a credential.
What Marketing Language on the Website Needs a Closer Look?
Beyond the testimonials, the site’s own About section uses a couple of phrases worth reading with a compliance eye rather than taking at face value.
The site describes providing reliable stock market guidance and states its vision is to be a partner that enhances investor confidence and success.
Paired with recommendations rather than a neutral description of the service, words like reliable and success lean toward an outcome impression that SEBI’s advertisement code for Research Analysts specifically cautions against.
None of this amounts to an explicit guarantee of returns in the way SEBI orders have treated direct profit promises.
It is the kind of phrasing a compliance review would ordinarily catch before publication, and it sits alongside testimonials using similar language rather than as an isolated slip.
How to File a Complaint Against Max Pro Capital Advisory?
Given how clean the complaint history is, an issue here is more likely to concern the pricing page or the multiple phone numbers than an established pattern of misconduct.
Start by getting the basics resolved in writing.
Ask specifically for the exact duration of the Special Package, whether the struck-through original prices were ever actually charged to any client, and which phone number is the official one for a formal complaint versus a sales inquiry.
Send your grievance to the RA firm’s email ID, describing what you were told, what you paid, and by which contact number.
Keep the sent record regardless of what comes back.
If the response is not satisfactory, escalation runs through a specific set of channels, and each one exists for a different stage of the dispute rather than as alternatives to pick from.
1. SEBI SCORES for the Formal Regulatory Complaint
Once a direct grievance goes unresolved, the complaint moves onto the regulator’s own platform.
The SEBI SCORES complaint portal is where that filing happens, and a documented pricing or contact discrepancy gives the platform something concrete to examine.
2. SMART ODR for Conciliation if SCORES Does Not Resolve it
Where SCORES closes without a satisfactory outcome, the next stage is structured conciliation rather than a repeat complaint.
The SMART ODR portal covers how a conciliator gets assigned and what documents to bring into that session.
3. Arbitration if Conciliation Does Not Settle it
When conciliation still does not produce a settlement, arbitration is the stage that ends in a binding outcome.
Arbitration in stock exchange proceedings results in an award enforced through the exchange rather than negotiated with the analyst directly.
That covers each channel on its own, but none of them explain how to actually build and sequence a case from the first email onward.
If you want to know the full process in detail, check our guide complaint against SEBI registered research analyst.
That guide covers the sequencing. It is worth pairing with a separate check on scope, since the multiple numbers on this site are exactly the kind of ambiguity where a call could drift past research into something else.
Our wider guide on what a SEBI registered research analyst can and cannot do sets out that boundary if any call ever starts sounding like account handling or a profit promise.
Confused which of the four numbers is actually official?
We confirm the registered contact details directly against the SEBI record, verify what you were actually quoted against the published prices, and put any gap on file in a form the analyst has to respond to. Register with us for a free read on your situation.
Disclaimer
This page is based on Max Pro Capital Advisory’s own published material and the SEBI intermediary register, current as of September 2026, and alleges no wrongdoing since no SEBI order stands against the firm.
Registration details, pricing, and website content can change, so verify everything at source before acting. Treat this page as research, not legal or investment advice.
Conclusion
Max Pro Capital Advisory is a genuinely registered SEBI Research Analyst, INH000010690, held by Ramprasad Omprakash Mundada, with a complaint record that reconciles cleanly across every table the firm publishes, a genuinely rare thing among the firms reviewed on this site.
Where the site needs a closer look is its pricing page, where discounts climb as high as 87.5 percent on the yearly plan with no explanation of the original figures, its two plan families that overlap almost entirely, its contact details, where four different phone numbers appear across the site with no indication of which one is official, and a complaint disclosure that has not been refreshed since June 2026.
Before paying anything, confirm the exact duration of the Special Package, ask whether the struck-through prices were ever real, and confirm which number connects to the registered proprietor directly.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. It is registered to Ramprasad Omprakash Mundada, operating as Max Pro Capital Advisory. Confirm it directly on the SEBI register rather than relying on the website alone.
It cannot be confirmed either way from the website alone. Ask the firm directly whether the struck-through original price was ever actually charged before treating either figure as meaningful.
Possibly. At ₹1,78,000 with no stated duration, it exceeds the ₹1,51,000 annual ceiling if the price covers a year or less. Get the exact duration in writing before paying.
Yes, and it is one of the more consistent disclosures reviewed on this site. The current month, monthly trend and annual tables all agree on 7 complaints received and resolved since November 2022, with none pending.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
