Quick Summary
Omkar Thakur is a SEBI registered Research Analyst carrying INH000017532, operating under the brand StockVista. The registration is genuine and active since July 2024. Four of StockVista’s seven published plans breach the ₹1,51,000 annual fee ceiling on their own, with the Premium monthly plan annualising to ₹9,00,000, roughly six times the limit. Payments route through WhatsApp, which the site’s own published warnings advise against. A separate SEBI registrant, Stockvista Research Private Limited, carries a similar name but is a distinct company with no evident connection to Omkar Thakur.
Omkar Thakur has held SEBI Research Analyst registration INH000017532 since 12 July 2024, and operates under the trading brand StockVista.
The registration itself checks out cleanly against SEBI’s own published list. What does not check out as cleanly is what happens once you look past the registration number to the pricing page.
Four of the seven plans StockVista publishes cost more in a year than SEBI permits a research analyst to charge an individual client, and one of them costs roughly six times that limit.
This page works through the registration, the pricing against the cap, how payment is actually collected, the complaint disclosure, and a second SEBI registrant carrying a name close enough to StockVista’s that it is worth knowing about before you assume you are dealing with one firm rather than two.
Omkar Thakur Review
Omkar Thakur, full name Omkar Namdeo Thakur, is an individual SEBI Research Analyst operating the trading brand StockVista from Thane, Maharashtra.
His own disclosure page states plainly that the scope of his service is restricted to independent research recommendations only.
No Investment Advisory, no Portfolio Management, and no execution or implementation services.
That is a clean and correctly stated scope for an INH registration, and it is worth reading in full because it sets up a tension that shows up later on the pricing and lead capture pages.
StockVista offers Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly subscription packages, each combining what the site calls Community Support and RM, meaning Relationship Manager support. The Premium tier adds daily 2 to 4 trades.
Separately, the site’s callback and lead capture form asks prospective clients to choose a segment from Option, Future, or Intraday, which reads as active short-term trading tips rather than the independent research-only framing the Disclosure page describes.
Neither framing is necessarily wrong on its own.
Read together, a prospective client filling in that form is being asked to select a trading segment for a service whose own compliance document describes itself as research only, and the two documents were clearly not written with each other in view.
No social media links appear anywhere on the site, in the footer or on any page reviewed here.
For an operation actively soliciting new clients through a lead form, that is an unusual gap, and it means there is no public channel outside the website itself where a prospective client could see how the firm engages with people before paying.
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 Omkar Thakur SEBI Registered?
Yes. The registration is genuine, individual, and appears on SEBI’s own published Research Analyst list.
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Registered Person | Omkar Thakur |
| Business/Brand Name | StockVista |
| SEBI Registration Number | INH000017532 |
| Type of Registration | Individual |
| BSE RA Enlistment No. | 6296 |
| Registered On | 12 July 2024 |
| Validity | Perpetual |
| Registered Office | B-14 Guru Prerna Society, Near Vitthal Mandir, Kopri Gaon, Thane, Maharashtra 400603 |
| Correspondence Address | Office No. 308, Lodha Supremus 2, Wagle Estate, Thane West, Maharashtra 400604 |
| Contact | compliance@stockvista |
What the INH Prefix Permits
The INH prefix marks a Research Analyst. An INA prefix would mark an Investment Adviser, and the difference decides what he may legally sell.
A Research Analyst may publish research and issue recommendations to a subscriber base.
He may not give personalised advice built around your income, your goals or your holdings; he may not execute trades, and may not manage your portfolio.
His own Disclosure page states this correctly.
What matters for a prospective client is whether the sales process matches it, which is the question the segment selector on the callback form raises.
The Disciplinary Record
The Disclosure page states that no penalties or directions have been issued by SEBI against him relating to Research Analyst services, and that no pending material litigation or regulatory action exists against him.
That is a clean disciplinary record as of the firm’s own most recent disclosure, and it is worth stating plainly rather than treating every registered analyst’s page the same way regardless of what it says.
Is Stockvista Research Private Limited the Same as Omkar Thakur’s StockVista?
This is worth answering directly, because searching the brand name alone surfaces two different SEBI registrants, and confusing them would mean checking one firm’s record while dealing with the other.
Public records show no connection between them.
They appear to be two separate and unrelated SEBI registrants that happen to carry an almost identical name.
| Detail | Omkar Thakur | Stockvista Research Private Limited |
|---|---|---|
| SEBI Registration No. | INH000017532 | INH000025072 |
| Type of Registration | Individual | Non-individual, company |
| Registered On | 12 July 2024 | Effective 20 February 2026 |
| Registered Address | Thane, Maharashtra | Nagpur, Maharashtra |
| Contact Person | Omkar Thakur | Ghanshyam Rawat |
| Email Name | omkarthakur477 | stockvistaresearch |
The company carries CIN U70200MH2024PTC433458 on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs register, incorporated on 11 October 2024, roughly three months after Omkar Thakur’s own registration went live.
Its listed directors are Gaurav Bhati and Ghanshyam Rawat.
Omkar Thakur’s name does not appear anywhere in that company’s public MCA filings.
The MCA classification for the company’s activity is management consultancy, though independent company data listings describe its actual line of business as real estate.
Neither description mentions research analyst services as the company’s founding activity, consistent with an RA registration only arriving over a year after incorporation.
The website at stockvista.in, meanwhile, names only Omkar Thakur and INH000017532 on its Disclosure page.
Its published complaint board for August 2026 shows 4 received and 4 resolved, matching the individual registrant’s own disclosed figures exactly.
Nothing on the site references Stockvista Research Private Limited or INH000025072.
Before paying anyone under a name resembling StockVista, check the exact registration number rather than the brand name alone.
A brand name is not unique. A registration number is.
What Does StockVista Offer?
StockVista structures its offering across three subscription tiers, each available on a Monthly, Quarterly, or Yearly cycle, combining research delivery with what the site calls Community Support and RM Support.
The Community Support plus RM tier is positioned as the entry-level offering.
The Basic Package sits above it, and the Premium Package sits at the top, described as including daily 2 to 4 trades.
That phrase is worth pausing on.
A Research Analyst delivers research and recommendations.
Framing a subscription around a daily trade count reads closer to a signal service than a research product, even where the underlying activity is the same recommendations delivered on a schedule.
Whether that framing crosses into advisory territory depends on execution, which the Disclosure page states StockVista does not provide.
The phrasing on the pricing page and the phrasing on the Disclosure page are simply not describing the service the same way, and a prospective client deciding between them should know that before paying rather than after.
StockVista Pricing and the ₹1,51,000 SEBI Fee Cap
This is the section that matters most, because the gap here is not a matter of interpretation. It is arithmetic.
Under the RA Regulations, a Research Analyst may charge a maximum of ₹1,51,000 per annum per family across all research services, for individual and HUF clients who are not accredited investors.
Non-individual and accredited clients fall outside the ceiling and negotiate bilaterally.
Nothing on StockVista’s pricing page identifies which plans, if any, are intended for accredited investors.
The plans are marketed openly through the site’s callback form to any prospective client, which means the retail ceiling is the one that applies unless StockVista states otherwise.
The Published Price List, Annualised And Fee Cap Breach Check
| Plan | Duration | Price | Annualised |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community Support + RM | Monthly | ₹25,000/month | ₹3,00,000/year |
| Basic Package | Monthly | ₹50,000/month | ₹6,00,000/year |
| Premium Package | Monthly | ₹75,000/month | ₹9,00,000/year |
| Community Support | Quarterly | ₹50,000/quarter | ₹2,00,000/year |
| Basic Package | Quarterly | ₹1,11,000/quarter | ₹4,44,000/year |
| Premium Package | Quarterly | ₹1,51,000/quarter | ₹6,04,000/year |
| Community Support | Yearly | ₹99,999/year | ₹99,999/year |
| Basic Package | Yearly | ₹1,51,000/year | ₹1,51,000/year |
No annual Premium plan is published. Premium is only sold Monthly or Quarterly, both of which breach the ceiling.
1. Every Monthly Plan Breaches the Ceiling
The ₹25,000 monthly plan annualises to ₹3,00,000, over by ₹1,49,000.
The ₹50,000 plan annualises to ₹6,00,000, over by ₹4,49,000.
The ₹75,000 Premium plan annualises to ₹9,00,000, nearly six times the ₹1,51,000 limit.
2. Two of Three Quarterly Plans Breach It as Well
The ₹50,000 quarterly Community plan annualises to ₹2,00,000, over by ₹49,000.
The ₹1,11,000 quarterly Basic plan annualises to ₹4,44,000, over by ₹2,93,000.
3. The Premium Quarterly Plan Is the Sharpest Single Data Point on This Page
Premium Quarterly is priced at ₹1,51,000 for three months.
That figure is not a coincidence worth glossing over.
₹1,51,000 is the entire annual ceiling SEBI permits for an individual client, and StockVista charges that same number for one quarter, which annualises to ₹6,04,000.
4. Both Yearly Plans Are Compliant
Community Support Yearly at ₹99,999 sits comfortably under the ceiling.
Basic Package Yearly at exactly ₹1,51,000 sits precisely at it.
Four plans breach the cap outright. A fifth prices an entire quarter at what the law permits for an entire year.
Only the two yearly plans, and only those two, are structured to fit inside what SEBI allows an individual client to be charged.
None of this proves any specific client has been charged above the ceiling.
It is possible every subscriber on the higher tiers is a non-individual or accredited client for whom the ceiling does not apply, though nothing on the pricing page says so.
What it does establish is that the published price list itself, as written, prices most of its plans outside what an individual or HUF client may lawfully be charged.
If you are being sold anything above the Basic Yearly or Community Yearly tier, ask directly which client category you fall into and get the answer in writing before paying.
One protection applies regardless of the plan. On early termination, you are entitled to a proportionate refund for the unexpired period, and Research Analysts may not retain a breakage fee.
Why Are StockVista Payments Routed Through WhatsApp?
This finding sits alongside the fee cap issue as the most actionable one on this page, because it concerns how money actually moves rather than what a page says it should cost.
To purchase a plan, prospective clients are redirected to StockVista’s WhatsApp channel to complete payment, rather than to a published bank account or a payment gateway on the site itself.
That sits awkwardly against the site’s own published warnings.
StockVista’s homepage displays a standing investor alert stating that unauthorized individuals have falsely claimed to represent the company, and it instructs visitors to verify a representative’s mobile number through an official tool before paying, warning against relying on WhatsApp messages, Telegram channels, or calls from unverified numbers.
Payment Policy and the Checkout Flow Point in Opposite Directions
The Disclosure and payment pages carry a related instruction: the firm does not accept payment in any third-party or savings bank account, and all payments must go to the RA’s current account only.
Read the things together. The investor alert tells visitors not to trust WhatsApp payment instructions.
The payment policy insists on an official current account. The actual checkout flow sends a paying client to WhatsApp.
We are not suggesting the WhatsApp channel used at checkout is unauthorized. It may be the firm’s own official channel, in which case the investor alert is simply written more broadly than the checkout flow it sits above.
What we are saying is that the instructions on the same website do not agree, and a prospective client following that warning to the letter would hesitate at the exact point the checkout flow asks them to proceed.
Before paying anything, ask for the RA’s current account details directly, in writing, and confirm them against the name on the SEBI registration, Omkar Thakur, rather than paying into an account or a WhatsApp-directed channel you have not independently verified.
What Does the StockVista Complaint Data Show?
Every SEBI-registered Research Analyst must publish monthly and annual complaint data. Here it is, reproduced in full.
August 2026 Complaint Data
| Received From | Pending at End of Last Month | Received | Resolved | Total Pending | Pending Over 3 Months | Average Resolution Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEBI (SCORES) | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grand Total | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
All four complaints in this table arrived through SEBI SCORES, and all four are marked resolved.
An average resolution time of zero days is itself worth a second look, since a same-day resolution across four separate regulatory complaints is an unusual figure to publish without further explanation.
Monthly Trend, Months With Complaints
| Month | Carried Forward | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2025 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Dec 2025 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Grand Total | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
Annual Trend, Years With Complaints
| Financial Year | Carried Forward | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 to 2025 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Grand Total | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
Four complaints across a firm’s short public record, all resolved, with none pending, is, on its face, a light complaint history, and it deserves to be read that way rather than inflated into something it is not.
Do the StockVista Complaint Tables Reconcile?
No, and the mismatch is specific rather than a rounding difference.
1. The Current Month Table Does Not Match the Monthly Trend Table
The August 2026 table records 4 received and 4 resolved.
The monthly trend table, covering the same reporting period, records 0 received and 0 resolved for August 2026.
Both tables are published by the same firm, describing the same month, with different numbers.
2. The Annual and Monthly Tables Assign the Same Complaints to Different Years
The monthly trend table places its 4 complaints in FY 2025 to 26, one in August 2025 and three in December 2025.
The annual table places all 4 of the same complaints in FY 2024 to 25.
That is not a reporting period difference of the kind that can explain Niveshartha’s or Nitilesh Pawaskar’s annual-versus-monthly gaps elsewhere on this site.
Here, the same four complaints are dated to two different financial years across two tables on the same page.
3. The Result Is a Complaint History That Cannot Be Pinned to a Single Timeline
A prospective client trying to establish when these four complaints actually occurred, and whether the current month figure of 4 is real or a duplication of the earlier four, cannot resolve that question from the disclosure as published.
Both readings are consistent with parts of the page and inconsistent with other parts of it.
SEBI expects a registered Research Analyst to maintain and disclose complaint data in the prescribed format.
Internal discrepancies at this level, where the same number is attributed to different periods across the firm’s own tables, point to a disclosure that is not being checked before publication rather than deliberate misstatement.
The practical takeaway matters more than the arithmetic itself. Do not treat the “0 pending” and “0 days resolution” figures at face value without asking StockVista directly to reconcile the three tables.
A firm that can explain the gap in writing has a maintained record. One that cannot has a disclosure that needs fixing regardless of what actually happened with those complaints.
How to File a Complaint Against Omkar Thakur or StockVista?
The two clearest issues on this page, the pricing structure and the payment routing, both turn on documented facts rather than on whether the research itself performed well, which gives a complaint here firmer ground than most.
Start with what you can document.
If you are on any plan above Basic Yearly or Community Yearly, work out your actual annual total from your payment records and compare it to ₹1,51,000.
If payment went through WhatsApp, save that conversation in full before it can be deleted or lost, along with any account details you were given.
Send the grievance by email, describing the plan, the annual total you were charged, and how payment was actually collected.
Ask directly which client category you were classified under and whether that classification was ever communicated to you before you paid.
If StockVista does not resolve the matter, 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 portal is where that filing happens, and framing the claim around the fee total and the payment method rather than the research quality gives the regulator something concrete to act on.
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 login page covers how a conciliator gets assigned and what documents to bring into that session.
3. Stock Market 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.
Stock market arbitration 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.
Charged above the SEBI fee cap?
We total your invoices against the ₹1,51,000 ceiling, document the payment channel used, and put both on record in a form the analyst has to respond to. Register with us for a free read on whether you have a documented claim.
Disclaimer
This page is based on Omkar Thakur’s and StockVista’s own published material, the SEBI intermediary register, SEBI’s published Research Analyst lists, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs register, current as of September 2026, and alleges no wrongdoing since no SEBI order stands against him.
Registration details, pricing, and website content can change, so verify everything at the source before acting. Treat this page as research, not legal or investment advice.
Conclusion
Omkar Thakur is a properly registered Research Analyst carrying INH000017532, active since July 2024, with a clean disciplinary record and a light complaint history of four resolved cases.
Where the record needs a closer look is the pricing structure and the payment channel. Four of seven published plans breach the ₹1,51,000 annual ceiling, one of them by close to six times, and payment is routed through a channel the site’s own published warning advises against trusting.
A second SEBI registrant, Stockvista Research Private Limited, carries a name close enough to create genuine confusion, and nothing in the public record connects the two.
Check the registration number, not the brand, before you pay anyone under either name.
Before subscribing to anything above the two yearly plans, get your client category and your full annual total in writing.
If you have already paid and the total or the payment method does not sit right, gather your invoices and your WhatsApp thread now.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. It is registered to Omkar Thakur as an individual Research Analyst from 12 July 2024 and is perpetual. Confirm it directly on the SEBI register rather than relying on the website alone.
They are not automatically illegal, since the ceiling applies only to individual and HUF clients who are not accredited investors. But the pricing page does not state which category any plan is intended for, so ask directly before paying anything above the yearly tiers.
No public record connects them. They hold different SEBI registration numbers, different registered addresses, and different named directors, and the StockVista website's own disclosure page names only Omkar Thakur.
The site's own investor alert advises against trusting WhatsApp payment instructions, while the checkout flow uses exactly that channel. Ask for the RA's current account details in writing and verify them against Omkar Thakur's registered name before paying.
The current month, monthly trend and annual tables assign the same four complaints to different periods. This looks like an unreconciled disclosure rather than a deliberate misstatement, but it means the figures should not be taken at face value without asking the firm to clarify.
Yes. Research Analysts must refund fees proportionately for the unexpired period on early termination and may not retain a breakage fee. Request this in writing and keep the request.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
