Quick Summary
Omniscience Capital Advisors Private Limited holds SEBI Research Analyst registration INH000020077, active alongside two sister registrations under the same company, an Investment Adviser licence and a Portfolio Manager licence. Its homepage is built almost entirely around the Portfolio Management strategies. The Research Analyst business, the one licence most visitors researching this firm are likely checking, is reachable only through the disclosures page, and no pricing for it is published anywhere. The complaint disclosure shows two complaints total, both resolved, though one of the two cannot be cross checked against the firm’s own monthly breakdown. A recurring “safely” theme in the marketing sits close to language the firm’s own disclaimer says should not be used.
Omniscience Capital Advisors Private Limited holds SEBI Research Analyst registration INH000020077, run alongside an Investment Adviser registration and a Portfolio Manager registration, all under the same company.
That structure alone is not unusual. Several firms reviewed on this site hold more than one SEBI licence.
What is worth knowing before you go looking for this firm’s research service is that its own website is built almost entirely around the third of those three licences, the Portfolio Manager business, and the Research Analyst service most people land on this page to check barely appears on it at all.
This page works through the registration, the visibility gap on the RA business, the pricing that is not published, the complaint disclosure, and the marketing language worth a second look.
Omniscience Capital Review
Omniscience Capital Advisors Private Limited operates three separate SEBI-regulated businesses under one company: Omniscience Research as its Research Analyst division, Omniscience Investment Adviser as its Investment Adviser division, and Omniscience Asset Management as its Portfolio Manager division.
The company was incorporated on 1 February 2017, and its founders carry IIT, IIM and Columbia backgrounds, with regular appearances across mainstream financial media including Mint, Moneycontrol, CNBC-TV18 and the Economic Times.
The homepage markets six or more named PMS strategies, with minimum ticket sizes ranging from ₹50 lakh to ₹5 crore, alongside headline figures of 1,200 crore peak assets under advice and 12,000 investors.
It also runs an active presence across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn and X, a WhatsApp community, and mobile apps for portfolio tracking on both Android and iOS.
What the homepage does not do is explain what the Research Analyst business actually offers.
There is no dedicated overview of the type of research reports produced, the coverage universe, or what a subscriber would actually receive.
That information exists, but only on the disclosures page, a page a visitor has to specifically seek out rather than one the rest of the site points them toward.
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 Omniscience Capital SEBI Registered?
Yes, across all three divisions, and each carries its own registration number, principal officer, and BSE enlistment where applicable.
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Registered Entity Name | Omniscience Capital Advisors Private Limited |
| CIN | U93000MH2017PTC290053 |
| RA Registration No. | INH000020077 |
| RA BSE Enlistment No. | 6517 |
| RA Principal Officer | Varun Sood |
| RA Compliance Officer | Chanchal Manglunia |
| Registered Office | Awfis, 1st Floor, B-Wing, Parinee Crescenzo, G-Block, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 |
| RA Contact | [email protected] |
What the INH prefix permits
The INH prefix marks a Research Analyst.
It permits publishing research and issuing buy, sell or hold 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, each of which sits under one of this company’s two other licences instead.
Three Licences, Three Principal Officers, Genuinely Separated
The Investment Adviser division carries registration INA000007623, with Vikas V Gupta as its Principal Officer.
The Portfolio Manager division carries registration INP000009597, with Ashwini Shami as its Principal Officer.
The Research Analyst division carries its own Principal Officer, Varun Sood, separate from the other two.
Three different named individuals holding principal officer responsibility across the three licences is a genuine structural separation, not just a disclosure statement claiming one exists.
That is worth crediting directly, since it is the correct way to run more than one regulated activity from a single company.
AUA Is Not The Same Figure As Regulated PMS Assets
The homepage’s 1,200 crore peak assets under advice figure describes assets under advice, a broader category that is not the same thing as assets actually managed under the PMS registration specifically.
Third-party PMS tracking data lists this firm’s discretionary PMS assets at a considerably smaller figure, in the tens of crores, as of mid 2026.
Both figures can be accurate at once, since they measure different things: total advisory reach across all three businesses combined, against assets specifically under discretionary portfolio management.
If a headline AUM or AUA figure matters to your decision, ask which specific registration and service it refers to, rather than assuming a large headline number describes the specific service you are considering.
Why Is the Research Analyst Business So Hard to Find on the Website?
This is the central finding on this page, and it is worth stating precisely rather than as a vague impression.
A visitor arriving at omnisciencecapital.com is met with Portfolio Management strategies, minimum ticket sizes, AUA figures, and investor counts.
Nothing on the homepage explains that a separate, lower-cost Research Analyst subscription service exists at all.
The Research Analyst information that does exist is limited to the disclosures page, the standard regulatory disclaimer document every RA is required to publish, rather than a dedicated service page describing what a subscriber actually receives.
1. No Pricing for the RA Service is Published Anywhere
Unlike the PMS strategies, which list minimum ticket sizes prominently, no fee is published for the Research Analyst service on any page reviewed here.
A prospective RA client has no way to compare cost against other registered analysts, or to check it against the SEBI fee ceiling, without contacting the firm directly.
2. No Description of What the RA Service Actually Delivers
The site does not set out the type of research reports produced, how often they are issued, what coverage universe they span, or what a subscriber gets access to.
Compare that to the detailed strategy pages built for the PMS business, and the gap is stark.
3. The Practical Result is a Transparency Gap for Exactly the Audience Most Likely to Need it
Someone researching this firm specifically for its Research Analyst service, rather than its considerably more expensive PMS offering, has the least information available to them of any visitor to this site.
Before subscribing to the RA service, ask directly for the full fee schedule in writing, along with a description of what research materials and how often you will receive them.
Get both before paying, since neither is available on the public site.
What Does Omniscience Capital’s Complaint Data Show?
Every SEBI-registered Research Analyst must publish monthly and annual complaint data.
Here, the volume is genuinely low, and that is worth stating plainly before getting into the one gap worth flagging.
Monthly Disposal Trend
| Month | Carried Forward | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2026 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| May 2026 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Jun 2026 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 2026 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2026 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Annual Disposal Trend
| Financial Year | Carried Forward | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2025-26 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2026-27 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Two complaints total since the firm’s records begin, both received and resolved, nothing pending.
That is a genuinely light complaint history, and it deserves to be read that way rather than searched for a problem that is not really there.
Also read: Parekh Jaykumar Bipinchandra displays “0 Complaints So Far” on site while its own disclosed complaint data says otherwise.
The One Gap Worth Flagging Precisely
The single complaint the monthly table shows, in May 2026, falls inside financial year 2026-27, which runs from April 2026.
The annual table’s FY2026-27 row correctly shows one complaint received and resolved, matching that May entry.
The FY2025-26 row is the one that does not reconcile.
It also shows one complaint received and resolved, but the monthly table published here only goes back as far as April 2026, the start of FY2026-27 itself.
There is no monthly data covering any part of FY2025-26, which ran from April 2025 to March 2026, so that earlier complaint cannot be checked against any monthly breakdown at all.
This is not evidence that anything was mishandled.
It means the published monthly table does not reach back far enough to let a reader verify the older of the firm’s two disclosed complaints, which is a presentation gap rather than a discrepancy between two sets of numbers that actually disagree.
One further oddity is worth a quick mention.
The monthly table includes blank placeholder rows running all the way through March 2027, well beyond the current reporting period.
That reads as a template built in advance rather than a table updated one month at a time, and it is worth asking the firm to confirm the table is being actively maintained rather than pre-populated.
What Marketing Language Needs a Closer Look?
The firm’s own disclaimer states that no communication may imply the research “is risk-free and/or not susceptible to market risks.”
Read that alongside the language the firm actually uses to describe itself.
The homepage headline reads “Grow your wealth, scientifically and safely,” and the tagline “Science of Alpha from Safety” appears alongside it.
The same safety framing recurs elsewhere, including a YouTube channel description built around the phrase “Enhance Safety, Enhance Growth, Enhance Returns.”
This is not a single stray headline.
The safety language repeats across the homepage, the tagline, and the firm’s YouTube presence, which makes it a consistent theme rather than an isolated phrase.
Pairing “safely” or “safety” directly with wealth growth and returns sits close to exactly the kind of implied-safety messaging the firm’s own disclaimer says should not be used.
This is not a claim that the firm has made an explicit guarantee of returns, which is a more serious violation SEBI treats differently.
It is a pattern worth a compliance review, since the language a firm chooses to headline with should not sit in tension with the disclaimer on the same site.
Also read: Pankaj Garg whose Telegram channel promotes trade outcomes using the same outcome-first framing that contradicts its own disclaimer.
How to File a Complaint Against Omniscience Capital?
Given how light this firm’s disclosed complaint history is, most issues here are more likely to be about clarity than conduct, most commonly which of the three registered activities you are actually dealing with, and what it costs.
Start by getting the basics in writing.
Ask specifically whether you are being sold Research Analyst services, Investment Adviser services, or a Portfolio Management strategy, since the three carry different fee structures, different rights, and different grievance routes.
Get the registration number for the specific service in the same email.
If a genuine grievance exists, whether about undisclosed pricing, marketing language, or anything else, put it in writing to the firm and keep the sent record before escalating further.
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 portal is where that filing happens, and specifying which of the firm’s three registrations your complaint concerns helps the platform route it correctly.
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 firm 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.
Never told what the RA service actually costs?
We get the fee schedule and service scope in writing directly from the firm on your behalf, and confirm it against the SEBI fee cap before you pay anything. Register with us for a free read on what you are actually being offered.
Disclaimer
This page is based on Omniscience Capital’s own published material, the SEBI intermediary register, and public third-party listings, 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
Omniscience Capital Advisors Private Limited holds a genuine SEBI Research Analyst registration, INH000020077, run alongside two properly separated sister licences and a light, largely clean complaint history of two total complaints, both resolved.
The issue here is not conduct so much as visibility.
The Research Analyst business is difficult to find on a website built around a considerably larger Portfolio Management operation; no pricing for it is published anywhere, and a recurring safety theme in the marketing sits close to language the firm’s own disclaimer says should not be used.
Before subscribing to any service this firm offers, confirm in writing exactly which registration you are dealing with, what it costs, and what you will actually receive.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. It is registered to Omniscience Capital Advisors Private Limited as a non-individual Research Analyst, confirmed on SEBI's own published Research Analyst list. Verify it directly on the SEBI register rather than relying on the website alone.
Yes. Each carries its own SEBI registration number and its own named Principal Officer, which is a genuine structural separation rather than a single disclosure statement covering all three.
No pricing is published on the website. Ask the firm directly for the full fee schedule in writing before subscribing, and check it against the ₹1,51,000 annual SEBI ceiling for individual and HUF clients.
No. It describes assets under advice across the firm's businesses generally, which is a different measure from assets actually managed under the specific Portfolio Manager registration. Ask which registration and service any headline figure refers to.
Not on its own. It has not been the subject of a SEBI order as of this writing. It is a recurring pattern worth a second look because it sits close to language the firm's own disclaimer says should not be used.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
