01 / The verdict
The short answer
Yes - the record supports it. Valid encryption, a reachable operator and a real footprint: this.com looks like a business built to stay, not a storefront built to vanish.
In short: LegitVerdict rates This.com (this.com) 64/100 - the evidence supports it as legitimate. The score breaks down into risk 37/100 (lower is safer), trust 67/100 and buyer-safety 61/100 (higher is safer to transact), at 63% confidence, computed from published, weighted signals.
This.com presents itself as a website operating from CA. Valid HTTPS from a trusted authority and a multi-year domain history are on record. That combination is exactly the kind of transparency a trustworthy operation provides and a throwaway site usually hides.
Instead of one blended number, this report keeps risk, trust and buyer-safety apart. This.com earns its result on each axis independently - the breakdown below shows the contribution of every signal, weighted by the published methodology.
A reminder on scope: this is an automated assessment of the website and domain - not a legal finding, not financial advice, and not an endorsement of what the operator publishes or sells.
Analysed 7 Jul 2026 3 days ago
Re-check this domain02 / The three scores
Risk, trust & buyer-safety
Three separate scores, each from its own evidence, so it is always clear what is being measured. Here is how this.com performs on each - and the signal breakdown that rolls up into them.
Closer to safe than not. Set against a scam template, this.com is missing the alarming parts; what keeps the needle off the floor is a handful of minor, fixable signals rather than any red flag.
Most of what a careful buyer would want on record is on record: who runs this.com, how to reach them, where they operate. A few secondary marks keep it shy of the top band.
The transaction essentials line up for this website - encrypted checkout, recognised payment methods, published ways to reach the seller - with only secondary marks keeping it below the top band.
Signal breakdown
The three scores above roll up these signal groups - each a grouped level from the live evidence, not the individual weights.
- Domain & registration
- 84/100
- Technical & server
- 66/100
- Reputation & reviews
- 50/100
- Business & transparency
- 49/100
- Social & content
- 47/100
Higher is stronger. Grouped from the live signals in the itemised evidence below - the exact weights are public on the methodology page.
03 / At a glance
Highlights & points to note
The fastest read on the domain: what is working in its favour, and the items worth attention. The full evidence for each is further down the report.
04 / The full record
Every detail, on file
The raw data behind the scores, grouped by area - registration, security, hosting, performance, reputation. Open any tab to inspect the evidence yourself.
05 / The evidence, itemised
Every signal, explained
Open any signal to read what it means for this.com and why it scores the way it does. Each one is tagged with the score it feeds.
Mail infrastructureno mail records at all (no MX, SPF or DMARC)Watch - risk
This data point was unavailable when the operation was last analysed.
Missing data never lowers a score - the engine simply notes reduced confidence and moves on.
Domain age31 years oldClean - risk
31 years old of continuous existence is on record for this.com - a track record that predates most scam domain lifecycles many times over.
Fraudulent storefronts are typically abandoned within months of registration, so domain age is one of the strongest cheap signals available.
Registration periodregistered for 38 yearsClean - trust
The operator paid ahead: registered for 38 years. That is money spent on a future, which disposable sites never spend.
Scam domains are nearly always registered for the single cheapest year; a long horizon is a quiet but honest trust marker.
WHOIS privacyregistrant details publicClean - risk
The operation publishes its registration identity rather than hiding behind a proxy service.
Public registrant data has become rare since GDPR, so when an operator volunteers it, it counts as extra transparency.
TLD risk profilestandard TLD (.com)Clean - risk
This.com lives on a standard, well-policed extension (standard TLD (.com)).
Mainstream TLDs cost more and verify more, which filters out the bulk-registration crowd.
Server locationhosted in CAClean - risk
Hosting checks out - hosted in CA, with stable DNS records behind it.
Where a site is hosted matters less than how stably it is hosted - both look normal for the operation.
SSL certificatevalid DV certificate (GoDaddy.com)Clean - risk
The operation serves a valid DV certificate (GoDaddy.com) - the certificate chain, hostname and validity window all check out.
Valid HTTPS protects payment and login data in transit; its absence would be disqualifying for any commercial site.
Response speedresponds in 190 msClean - ai
Response times are healthy - responds in 190 ms on our last measurement.
Speed is a proxy for operational care; neglected sites drift slow.
Search engine blockingopen to search enginesClean - risk
The operation is fully open to search engines (open to search engines).
Open indexing also feeds the AI-readiness axis - machines can only cite what they can crawl.
Registrar reputationGoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd.Neutral - risk
The registrar on record is GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd., which carries no particular reputation either way.
No reputational weight applies here - the engine simply records the fact.
Abuse-feed listingnot on any monitored abuse feedNeutral - risk
No abuse-feed listing was found for this.com - not on any monitored abuse feed.
Absence from these lists is not proof of safety - only that these sources have not listed it.
Traffic popularity (Tranco)not in the global top-1M (normal for niche sites)Neutral - trust
Not in the global top-1M (normal for niche sites) - the operation does not appear in the global top million.
Most small and local businesses live outside the top million; absence is normal, not negative.
Industry associationsno visible affiliationsNeutral - trust
We found no visible affiliations during the page analysis.
Absence of affiliations is common for small operations and carries no penalty.
Trust sealsno trust seals displayedNeutral - trust
No trust seals displayed on the pages we analysed.
The engine notes the absence purely for completeness.
Address specificityno address details foundNeutral - risk
No street-level address was found for this.com.
The signal is capped so it can never matter on its own.
Company registration (BG registry)no company ID published (not all jurisdictions publish one)Neutral - risk
No company ID published (not all jurisdictions publish one).
Many jurisdictions do not require publishing one, so absence is treated gently.
Product category riskcategory not determinedNeutral - risk
The analysis could not settle a single category for this.com.
Categorisation feeds context, not score - nothing changes either way.
Payment methodsno payment methods detectedNeutral - risk
Payment methods were not detectable from the public pages of this.com.
Some checkouts reveal options only after login; the engine treats this as unknown, not negative.
Review independenceno on-site testimonialsNeutral - risk
No on-site testimonials.
Reviews hosted by the seller cannot be audited, so LegitVerdict assigns them no trust value in either direction.
Social presenceno linked social profilesNeutral - trust
No social profiles are linked from this.com.
Plenty of legitimate businesses skip social media; this is a faint note, nothing more.
Technology stackplatform not identifiedNeutral - ai
The platform behind this.com could not be identified.
Custom builds are common and carry no penalty.
06 / The AI-readiness lens
How AI search reads this.com
A secondary, owner-facing lens - it does not affect the safety verdict above. Users increasingly ask an assistant before a search box, so these checks measure whether the models can actually read, understand and cite this.com. AI-readiness scores 5.0/10.
This.com is readable to machines but not legible: pages load and index, yet structured data and clear entity signals are mostly absent, so AI systems see a site without understanding the business.
LegitVerdict reads the live page the way a browser and an AI crawler do - these checks reflect what models actually see. Accuracy is the entire product.
07 / Staying safe
How to protect yourself
Practical, evidence-based steps for this domain - whether you are about to transact or want to be sure.
Nothing in the record suggests this.com is unsafe. Standard online-shopping hygiene still applies:
- Pay with a method that offers buyer protection - a card or PayPal lets you dispute a charge if an order goes wrong.
- Keep the order confirmation and any correspondence until the goods arrive as described.
- Check that prices and delivery terms match elsewhere - a clean trust profile does not guarantee the best price or product.
- If something feels off during checkout, stop and contact the operator using the published details before paying.
Multi-source safety check
The live abuse and phishing sources could not be reached for this.com this analysis, so no listing result is shown. A missing check is not read as danger.
| Source | What it checks | Result |
|---|---|---|
| abuse.ch Feodo Tracker Licence: CC0 (abuse.ch) | The hosting IP address against known botnet command-and-control servers. | Source unavailable Could not be reached for this analysis. |
| abuse.ch SSL Blacklist Licence: CC0 (abuse.ch) | The hosting IP address against malicious-SSL and C2 fingerprints. | Source unavailable Could not be reached for this analysis. |
| Criminal / hijacked netblock list Licence: Free for commercial use (internal signal) | The hosting netblock against a list of criminal or hijacked IP ranges. | Source unavailable Could not be reached for this analysis. |
| Open phishing-domain blocklist Licence: MIT (Phishing.Database) | The domain name against an open-source phishing-domain blocklist. | Source unavailable Could not be reached for this analysis. |
Each row reflects only what that authoritative source publishes. A domain absent from a list is shown as “no listing found”, never as an endorsement - absence of a listing is not proof of safety, and a source we could not reach is not read as danger. Sources and their licences are documented on the methodology page.
08 / How LegitVerdict scores
Method & limits
Scoring methodology reviewed by The LegitVerdict Team, Search & AI-visibility engineering, technical SEO. This report was generated automatically on 7 Jul 2026 from live sources and states its own confidence (63%).
Registration and ownership records, security and hosting signals, reputation and popularity data, and the domain's own public pages - contacts, payments, content and structured data. Where a business is officially registered, we cross-check the public company record too.
Signals are sorted into risk, trust and buyer-safety and scored independently against a documented methodology - so a strong score in one area can never paper over a weakness in another, and every point is explainable. A secondary AI-readiness lens measures machine visibility only.
An automated assessment of a website and domain - not a legal finding, financial advice, or an endorsement of any product. A trust score is a probability signal stated with its confidence; owners can verify and correct the record for free.
Verifying takes a few minutes and the only condition is control of the domain. Verified owners can add details, respond on the record, and unlock the full AI-readiness fix list.
- 01 Add a DNS TXT record, or upload a small HTML file
- 02 We confirm you control the domain - that is the only condition
- 03 Verified badge goes live - a followed link is granted above the trust threshold
Verification proves control, not endorsement. Links are nofollow by default and only become followed for verified domains above the trust threshold.
Embed this.com’s live LegitVerdict badge on your own site. The image is served from LegitVerdict and shows the current score straight from our record, so it cannot be faked; the link points back to this report. Verify ownership to upgrade it to the “Verified by LegitVerdict” badge.
09 / Questions
People also ask
Is this.com legit?
Yes, on the data we verified. Valid HTTPS from a trusted authority and a multi-year domain history are on record. Nothing in the profile matches the patterns fraud systems are trained to catch.
What do reviews say about this.com?
Instead of user reviews anyone can manufacture, the verdict here is built from verifiable signals. On that evidence this.com looks solid: Valid HTTPS from a trusted authority and a multi-year domain history are on record. Treat on-page testimonials as promotion, not proof.
Is this.com safe to use?
Yes, with the usual care: the security record is clean and the operator is reachable. Use a protected payment method as you would anywhere.
Is this.com a scam?
There is no evidence of a scam. Valid HTTPS from a trusted authority and a multi-year domain history are on record. That is the profile of a real operation, not a disposable fraud storefront - though, as always, a protected payment method is sensible for any purchase.
Is this.com trustworthy?
On the evidence, yes. Valid HTTPS from a trusted authority and a multi-year domain history are on record. Those are the marks of a trustworthy operator, and every one is open for inspection in the record below.
What is this.com's LegitVerdict Trust Score?
The LegitVerdict Trust Score for this.com is 64/100 (3.2 out of 5) - an algorithmic rating of the domain's trustworthiness. It breaks down into risk 37/100 (lower is safer), trust 67/100 and buyer-safety 61/100 (higher is safer to transact), at 63% confidence, from 21 live signals. The methodology and weights are public.
Who is behind this.com?
For this.com, the public record shows an operation based in CA. The operator can verify ownership to attach full company details to this report.
How is this different from other scam checkers?
Transparency is the difference. The methodology and weights are public, every signal on this page shows its evidence and its contribution, and the verdict is an explainable algorithmic score - not an opaque grade with a paid appeal process.