Quick Summary
Niveshartha Private Limited reviews split sharply depending on the platform. The Google listing averages 4.2 stars across 603 ratings. The Google Play app sits at 3.0 across 147 reviews, and the Apple App Store shows 3.9 across just 22. The firm’s own mandatory disclosure records 79 complaints received and 79 resolved across the twelve months to July 2026, with annual complaints rising from 4 to 76 across two financial years. Every complaint in the latest reported period arrived through SEBI SCORES. Not one was logged as coming directly from an investor.
Across the twelve months to July 2026, Niveshartha Private Limited received 79 complaints, and every one in the latest reporting month reached the firm through SEBI SCORES rather than from an investor directly.
That single line reframes the entire review picture. A 4.2-star Google average suggests a firm most clients are content with.
A complaint file where nobody complains to the firm first suggests something rather different about how grievances get handled before they escalate.
Niveshartha Private Limited reviews therefore need reading in layers.
The Google rating, the two app store ratings, the named one-star accounts, and the firm’s own disclosure tables each carry a different part of the answer.
Niveshartha Private Limited Ratings And Reviews
They say two different things depending on where you look, and the gap between them is itself the finding.
On Google, the firm carries 4.2 stars across 603 reviews. That is a strong rating on a large sample, and it is the first thing anyone searching the name will see.
On the Google Play Store, the same firm’s app carries 3.0 stars across 147 reviews. The distribution is split between a large block of five-star ratings and an almost equally large block of one-star ratings, with very little in between.
On the Apple App Store, the app shows 3.9 out of 5, from only 22 ratings, a base too small to read much into.
A 1.2-star gap between a business listing and its own app is unusual enough to be worth explaining rather than glossing over.
App store ratings are harder for any business to shape.
Reviews are tied to verified installs, and the platforms do not offer the same moderation tools a business listing does.
The named negative reviews then follow a consistent shape across all three platforms.
Heavy contact before payment, thinner contact after it, and pressure toward a larger annual plan once a loss has occurred.
Registration status and the full price list are separate questions from what users report, and we have covered both on our page on Niveshartha Private Limited as an entity.
What Rating Does Niveshartha Private Limited Have on Google?
The Google Business listing shows 4.2 stars from 603 reviews, under an address at No. 576/B, 4th Floor, Venkatapura, Santhosapuram, 6th Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru 560034.
That address differs from the one recorded against the firm’s SEBI registration, which matters only if you ever need to serve something formally.
A 4.2 average across 603 reviews is a large sample and a good score.
Taken alone it would describe a firm doing well by most of its clients.
The reason it cannot be taken alone is that two separate reviewers, on two different platforms, have publicly alleged that positive ratings were solicited.
Those allegations appear below in their own accounts and remain unverified.
What Do the One Star Google Reviews Say?
Four named one-star accounts appear on the listing, spread across roughly a year.
They are set out here with the reviewer name, the platform, and the timing, because a named public account is a materially different thing from an anonymous complaint.
Read them for the repetition rather than the anger. The specifics recur in a way that is harder to dismiss than the tone.
1. Mohamad Junaith on the ₹8,000-a-Day Profit Promise
This reviewer, whose profile shows 3 reviews and 3 photos, describes a high volume of calls and daily profit promises before payment, and a different experience after it.
He states that the team changed, that most trades closed negative, and that the profile manager assigned to him before payment, whom he names as Abdul, alongside another person named Hari handling money management, stopped picking up his calls from the day the payment cleared.
On the promise itself, he writes that he was assured before paying of at least 8,000 rupees of profit per day, and that afterwards he received single trade calls with small profits while most days ended negative.
2. Parvathavarthini Sabarigirinathan on the ₹1.7 Lakh Upgrade Push
Posted from a profile with a single review and carrying 18 reactions, this is the most specific account on money.
She writes that she began a one-month trial, that the team pushed her toward a one-year service, and that she made a partial payment of ₹43,000 toward it.
After paying, she describes receiving no proper response or guidance.
Her central claim concerns the sales objective.
She states the main goal appeared to be getting people to commit to a one-year plan priced at ₹1.7 lakh, and that she had not received a single trade in the week before writing.
That figure is worth holding onto. The firm’s published price list has no single plan at ₹1.7 lakh, but two of its annual plans bought together come to ₹1,69,998, against an annual ceiling of ₹1,51,000 per family.
3. Sharon Rohith on Being Pushed to Renew After Calls Stopped
Posted by a Google Local Guide with 39 reviews and 29 photos, carrying 25 reactions, this review describes the escalation pattern most directly.
He states that calls were given randomly rather than based on proper analysis, that he suffered a large loss, and that he did not recover what he paid.
He then describes being pushed to pay for a one year subscription after the firm had stopped providing calls, and says the firm did not call him once.
4. Seema Nair on Trades Given Without a Stop-Loss
This reviewer, a Local Guide with 8 reviews and 8 photos, whose review carries 17 reactions, describes being offered several additional benefits on taking a premium membership and states that none were delivered.
She raises one specific operational point, writing that trades were given without setting a stop loss, and that only people already able to trade independently should consider the service.
She also describes an inability to get calls picked up or returned.
Her review closes by alleging that the positive reviews on the listing were arranged rather than organic.
One detail needs flagging, honestly. This review refers by name to Alco Trade, a different company, in the middle of an otherwise specific account.
That may be a copy-and-paste error by the reviewer, or a review posted against the wrong listing.
Either way, it is a reason to weigh this particular account more cautiously than the other three.
We are reporting what these users said on a public platform. We are not independently verifying these accounts, and no SEBI order confirming this conduct has been issued as of this writing.
How Did Niveshartha Private Limited Respond to the Negative Reviews?
The firm responded publicly to one of the four, and the response deserves reading because it is measured rather than defensive.
Replying to SEEMA NAIR, the account posting as Niveshartha (owner) expressed regret about the experience and strongly denied any wrongful intent or any manipulation of reviews.
It stated that services and offers are provided as per defined processes.
At the same time, outcomes may vary, acknowledged a possible lapse in communication, and asked the reviewer to share her registered details with the official support team so the matter could be reviewed.
Two observations follow. The denial is direct and on the record, which is more than many firms offer, and it belongs alongside the allegation rather than buried under it.
The timing is the weaker part.
The review was posted roughly a year before September 2026, and the response appeared around eight months before it, leaving a gap of several months.
The other three one-star reviews carry no visible response at all.
Why Is the App Rating Lower Than the Google Rating?
App store ratings tend to be the harder number for any firm to manage, which is part of why the gap between the two is worth examining.
Google Play Store: 3.0 from 147 reviews
The app sits at 3.0 stars across 147 reviews. The distribution is not a normal spread.
The five-star bar and the one-star bar are both long, while the four, three and two-star bars are barely visible.
A rating shaped like that usually reflects two distinct populations rather than one mixed experience.
A one-star review by Binshad Ashraf CK, dated 27 May 2024, was marked helpful by 58 people, making it the most endorsed review on the listing.
He writes that neither the team nor the application can be trusted, that he tried the service for a month and took a large loss, and that calls stopped arriving as soon as his plan expired.
His most specific allegation concerns the ratings themselves.
He writes that clients may be asked to rate the app five stars as soon as they book a profit of 800 or 1,000 rupees, and says he did exactly that before returning to edit his rating after a full month.
That account and SEEMA NAIR’s are independent of each other, sit on different platforms, and make the same allegation about how positive ratings were gathered.
Apple App Store: 3.9 from 22 ratings
The Apple listing shows 3.9 out of 5 from 22 ratings, a sample small enough that a handful of reviews moves the average significantly.
A one-star review dated 19 July 2025 carries a title warning readers to beware and describes the firm as trading on the reputation that comes with SEBI registration.
The account inside it follows the same escalation shape as the Google reviews.
The reviewer describes paying for a basic five-day algo trading service, taking a loss on it, and then being urged toward a six-month package covering option selling and intraday, for which he states he paid 59 percent of the amount.
The firm did not respond to any of the negative comments on the Apple listing.
What Pattern Runs Through These Accounts?
Individual reviews prove nothing on their own. Repetition across independent reviewers on separate platforms is a different matter, and four points recur here.
1. Contact Drops Away After Payment
Mohamad Junaith describes his profile manager going unreachable the day payment cleared.
Binshad Ashraf CK describes calls stopping when his plan expired. SEEMA NAIR describes calls not being picked up or returned.
2. The Upgrade Arrives After the Loss, Not Before It
Sharon Rohith describes being pushed toward a one-year plan after his loss.
The Apple reviewer describes a six-month package urged after losing on a five-day service.
Parvathavarthini Sabarigirinathan describes a trial converted into pressure toward a ₹1.7 lakh commitment.
This is the point at which investors most often lose the larger sum. The first payment is small enough to write off. The second is made while trying to recover the first.
3. Specific Profit Figures Appear in the Sales Conversation
An assurance of at least 8,000 rupees per day appears in one account.
No research analyst may promise a return of any kind, and a promise like that is a regulatory issue independent of whether the trades worked out.
4. Nothing Sits in Writing
Every one of these accounts describes calls, assignments to named managers and verbal assurances. None describes a written commitment, which is exactly why they become hard to prove afterwards.
If your own experience matched two or more of these, the promise made on the call carries the regulatory weight, not the loss itself.
Our guide to filing a complaint against SEBI registered research analyst sets out which of these facts a regulator will actually act on.
Niveshartha Private Limited Complaint Data
Every SEBI-registered research analyst must publish monthly and annual complaint data.
It is one of the few numbers a firm cannot shape, and it carries more weight than any review page.
Two points about presentation come before the numbers.
The complaints page reached from the top of the site’s More section displays blank, and the data only appears on scrolling further down.
A casual visitor would reasonably conclude no complaint data exists. It does exist, and the structure is complete once you find it.
The disclosure also states that data will be updated by the 7th of every month.
As of September 2026, the most recent month shown is July 2026, leaving the page at least one full cycle behind its own stated schedule.
The Monthly Complaint Record
| Month | Carried Forward | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2025 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 1 |
| Oct 2025 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
| Nov 2025 | 0 | 11 | 4 | 7 |
| Dec 2025 | 7 | 12 | 18 | 1 |
| Jan 2026 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 2 |
| Feb 2026 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 |
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Apr 2026 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 0 |
| May 2026 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| Jun 2026 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 3 |
| Jul 2026 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Total | 3 | 79 | 79 | 2 |
This table deserves credit. The received and resolved columns both total 79, and every month’s closing pending figure carries correctly into the next month’s opening balance.
It is internally consistent, which is not always the case with these disclosures and should be said plainly.
Three months stand out in the backlog. November 2025 closed with 7 pending against 11 received.
March 2026 closed with 5 pending. June 2026 closed with 3.
The Annual Complaint Record
| Financial Year | Carried Forward | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 to 2023 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2023 to 2024 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| 2024 to 2025 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 0 |
| 2025 to 2026 | 0 | 76 | 71 | 0 |
| 2026 to 2027 | 5 | 19 | 22 | 2 |
| Total | 5 | 114 | 112 | 2 |
The growth curve is the headline. Complaints went from 4 in the 2023 to 24 financial year, to 15 the following year, to 76 in 2025 to 26.
That is roughly a fivefold rise in each of two consecutive years.
The current year has recorded 19 in its opening months, which annualises to a similar level.
One caveat belongs here, in fairness. The disclosure does not publish client numbers, so a complaint rate per thousand clients cannot be worked out.
A firm growing its client base quickly will see complaint counts rise for reasons unrelated to service quality.
The raw curve is a reason to look closer, not a conclusion on its own.
Do the Niveshartha Private Limited Complaint Tables Reconcile?
Two of the three checks pass. One does not, and it is arithmetic rather than interpretation.
1. The 2025 to 2026 Pending Figure Does Not Add Up
That row records 76 received and 71 resolved, which leaves 5 unaccounted for. The pending column for that year shows 0.
The next row confirms the error, because 2026 to 2027 opens with 5 carried forward.
Those 5 have to have come from somewhere. The pending figure for 2025 to 2026 should read 5, not 0.
2. The Annual and Monthly Totals Differ, and the Page Does Not Explain Why
The annual table shows 76 received in 2025 to 26. The monthly table shows 79 received from August 2025 to July 2026.
The periods genuinely differ, since a financial year runs April to March while the monthly table covers a rolling twelve months.
That accounts for the variance.
What the site does not do is say so, leaving a visitor to work out for themselves why two official tables report different numbers for what looks like the same thing.
3. The Reported Resolution Time Exceeds the Firm’s Own Commitment
The complaint source table records an average resolution time of 15 days.
The firm’s mandatory disclosure page states grievances will be resolved within seven business working days.
Fifteen days does not fit inside that on any reading, whether counted in calendar or working days.
It does fit inside the 21 working day figure published on the escalation matrix page, which is precisely the problem with publishing three different timelines across three pages.
Why Did Every Complaint Arrive Through SEBI SCORES?
This is the single most revealing number in the whole disclosure, and it is easy to scroll past.
| Received From | Pending Last Month | Received | Resolved | Total Pending | Pending Over 3 Months | Average Resolution Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Directly from Investor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| SEBI (SCORES) | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 15 days |
| Other Sources | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Grand Total | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 15 days |
Read the first row again. Zero complaints received directly from investors.
Every complaint in the reporting period arrived after the investor had already gone to the regulator.
The SEBI framework is built on the opposite assumption. You raise the issue with the firm, the firm gets its chance to fix it, and only if that fails does the matter escalate.
A disclosure showing nothing at the first stage and everything at the second supports one of two readings.
Either investors are bypassing the firm entirely because they do not expect a useful answer, or grievances made directly are not being recorded as complaints in the disclosure.
Neither reading is comfortable, and both point at the internal grievance mechanism rather than at the regulator.
How to File a Complaint Against Niveshartha Private Limited if Your Experience Matched These Reviews?
Everything above is evidence of a pattern. None of it is your case. Your case is built from what you personally paid, kept, and were told.
With zero complaints logged as arriving directly from investors, a written grievance that provably exists puts you in a stronger position than most people who deal with this firm.
Send it by email and keep the sent record. Set out what you paid, what you were told before paying, and what actually happened, with the receipts attached.
Ask in the same email which grievance timeline the firm is applying to your case, because it publishes three conflicting figures and the answer is worth having on record.
Before escalating, separate your claim into two parts.
- The fees you paid are documented and recoverable on clear grounds.
- The trading loss needs a demonstrated link between what you were told and what you did.
Where to Escalate If the Firm Doesn’t Respond
If the firm does not resolve it, the matter goes to SEBI’s own platform, where the response is recorded and timestamped rather than left as a phone conversation.
Filing there is set out in our guide to the SEBI SCORES portal, including what evidence the platform expects and how the firm is required to respond.
Most people stop after the firm’s first reply, which is exactly the point where a weak response becomes a permanent one.
A closed complaint is not the end of the road unless you treat it as one.
Where SCORES closes without a satisfactory outcome, conciliation follows, and our guide to SMART ODR login explains how a conciliator is assigned and which documents to have ready.
One thing to avoid throughout. Three of the accounts on this page describe a second payment made to recover a first loss, and in each one it made the position worse.
If conciliation does not produce a settlement, the stage that follows is stock market arbitration, which ends in a binding award enforceable through the exchange rather than a response you have to accept.
Did the calls stop the moment your payment cleared?
We pull your payment trail, call logs, and chat records into one dated timeline, name the right respondent from the SEBI register, and carry the file through so it does not get closed as a service complaint. Register with us and we will tell you what your evidence is actually worth.
Disclaimer
Every review on this page is reproduced from a named public account on Google, the Google Play Store, the Apple App Store or Glassdoor, and is reported rather than independently verified. All complaint figures come from the firm’s own mandatory disclosure, accurate as at September 2026.
No SEBI order stands against Niveshartha Private Limited as of this writing, and nothing here alleges wrongdoing by the firm. Verify current ratings and disclosure figures at source before acting, and treat this page as research rather than legal or investment advice.
Conclusion
The Niveshartha Private Limited reviews picture is genuinely mixed, and presenting it as anything else would be inaccurate.
A 4.2-star average across 603 Google ratings is real. The firm denied the review manipulation allegation publicly and on the record.
Its monthly complaint table reconciles cleanly, which many do not.
Against that sit a 3.0 app rating with a sharply split distribution, four named one-star accounts describing the same sequence, an arithmetic error in the annual complaint table, a disclosure a month behind its own schedule, and a complaint file in which not one investor came to the firm before going to the regulator.
If you are still deciding, get every promise in writing before you pay, and never make a second payment to recover a first loss.
If money has already gone, start assembling the payment trail and chat records today.
The case you build this week from what you saved will be far stronger than the one you build in six months from memory.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not on its own. Business listing ratings can be solicited, while regulatory complaint disclosures cannot be edited. Read the firm's mandatory monthly complaint data alongside the star rating, since the two often point in different directions.
Yes. A research analyst is prohibited from promising returns in any format, including on a call. Name the person, the date and the figure quoted. Call recordings and chat messages carry weight without a signed document.
Not directly, since a regulator acts on your own documented facts rather than third-party reviews. Public reviews are useful for showing a pattern, but your file has to stand on your payment records and communications.
Potentially, and it is often the stronger claim. Payments taken on the basis of recovering an earlier loss go directly to a prohibited promise, which is easier to establish than a dispute about research quality.
Act as early as you can, since older matters get harder to evidence and dispute routes carry their own limitation periods. Gather receipts and correspondence now rather than waiting to see whether the firm responds.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
