Trust score
95 / 100
The trust score combines technical checks, reputation signals where available, website history cues, scam intelligence, and AI-assisted analysis.
Signals behind your score
Highly Trusted
Availability: limited_inspection · Website responded, but some page details could not be fully inspected during this scan. (HTTP 200)
Inspection: blocked · dns=true · tls=true · botProtection=true · parserFailure=false · contentLength=654765
Matches from scam intelligence
Serious matches from known phishing, malware, or public scam-warning sources. Provider names appear below each row.
No known phishing, malware, or police-aligned scam warnings were found in this scan.
Detected risk patterns
Additional patterns worth a closer look before you pay or sign in—not proof on their own.
No additional prioritized risk rows were raised beyond curated list matches.
Helpful signals & observations
Supporting checks in plain language. “Not found” means we did not see a report in that source during this scan.
No police list match found
No direct domain match was found on the public police trader-warning list checked in this scan.
Source: Dutch Police (public pages)Source reliability: low
Registration data (RDAP)
Approximate domain age: 11313 days. RDAP target (registrable/root domain): hema.nl. Registrar: Hema B.V.. Country: not provided. Expiration: not parsed. Privacy or redacted registration details were detected in RDAP entities.
Source: RDAP (rdap.org)Source reliability: high
No known phishing report found
This website was not found in known phishing threat lists during this scan. New scam sites can appear quickly, so this is one signal among several.
Source: OpenPhishSource reliability: medium
URLhaus unavailable
HTTP 401
Source: URLhausSource reliability: low
HTTPS is available
HTTPS is available. This protects the connection, but does not verify that the site is legitimate. Issuer: Let's Encrypt. Expiry: 2026-08-24T17:19:25.000Z.
Source: TLS certificate checkSource reliability: high
Redirect chain detected
The entered website redirects before loading the final page. This appears to remain within the same registrable domain.
Source: Fraudly redirect analysisSource reliability: high
Older domain registration
The domain has been registered for roughly 30 years, which can be a modest positive context signal.
Source: RDAP (rdap.org)Source reliability: medium
Domain & registration
- Checked URL/hostname: hema.nl
- Registered domain: hema.nl
- Registration date: 1995-06-19T21:00:00.000Z
- Domain age: 30 years, 12 months, 3 days
- Registrar: Hema B.V.
- Country: unknown
- Expiration date: unknown
- Privacy / redacted ownership hints: yes
Source: RDAP (SIDN)
Redirect analysis
- Original URL: https://hema.nl/
- Final URL: https://www.hema.nl/
- Final domain: hema.nl
- Redirect count: 1
- Crossed registrable domain: no
- https://www.hema.nl/
Security checks (HTTPS / certificates)
- HTTPS/TLS reachable: yes
- Certificate trusted in probe: yes
- Possibly self-signed / untrusted: no / unknown
- Issuer: Let's Encrypt
- Expiry: 2026-08-24T17:19:25.000Z
Source: TLS certificate check
Technical source details
Raw provider names (OpenPhish, URLhaus, Google Web Risk, RDAP, etc.) for this scan. “Matched” means that source reported something relevant.
Privacy-protected or redacted ownershipdomainmatched
RDAP entity fields suggest privacy or redaction. This is common and not proof of abuse.
Source: RDAP (rdap.org) · severity: warning · reliability: low
No Police page string matchgovernmentno match
No direct domain string overlap was detected in lightly cached excerpts of the referenced politie.nl pages. Missing a hit is not proof a shop is trustworthy.
Source: Dutch Police (public pages) · severity: info · reliability: low
Registration data (RDAP)domainno match
Approximate domain age: 11313 days. RDAP target (registrable/root domain): hema.nl. Registrar: Hema B.V.. Country: not provided. Expiration: not parsed. Privacy or redacted registration details were detected in RDAP entities.
Source: RDAP (rdap.org) · severity: info · reliability: high
No OpenPhish match found in this snapshotphishingno match
No overlapping entry was found in the fetched OpenPhish feed for this check window. This does not prove the site is safe.
Source: OpenPhish · severity: info · reliability: medium
URLhaus unavailablemalwareno match
HTTP 401
Source: URLhaus · severity: info · reliability: low
HTTPS is availablesslno match
HTTPS is available. This protects the connection, but does not verify that the site is legitimate. Issuer: Let's Encrypt. Expiry: 2026-08-24T17:19:25.000Z.
Source: TLS certificate check · severity: info · reliability: high
Older domain registrationdomainno match
The domain has been registered for roughly 30 years, which can be a modest positive context signal.
Source: RDAP (rdap.org) · severity: positive · reliability: medium
Redirect chain detecteddomainmatched
The entered website redirects before loading the final page. This appears to remain within the same registrable domain.
Source: Fraudly redirect analysis · severity: info · reliability: high
Reputation enrichment
Optional broader reputation pass when available—beyond the quick baseline probes.
No enriched reputation profile surfaced. That limits context; it does not prove the site is unsafe.
Quick review probes (baseline scan)
Lightweight directory checks powering part of the model—hiccups here describe our snapshot, not the shop’s honesty.
Trustpilot · Unavailable
UnavailableTrustpilot
No public reviews found
Checked, no public reviews found
Google Reviews · Verified
VerifiedGoogle Reviews
★★★☆☆3.4 / 5
Based on 174 reviews
Today I paid 6 euro more than I should because the cashier didn’t scan the products correctly. I returned after 5 minutes to the store and asked a cashier (old woman with white hair) to check the invoice again and she…
Mixed public reputation
Customer experience — not a fraud signal
Today I paid 6 euro more than I should because the cashier didn’t scan the products correctly. I returned after 5 minutes to the store and asked a cashier (old woman with white hair) to check the invoice again and she…
- No reliable public review data found
Customer reviews indicate a mix of positive and negative experiences, with some complaints about service and product issues.
- Public review data unavailable for this check.
Source availability (neutral)
- Third-party Trustpilot snapshot: snapshot unavailable in this crawl (limits confidence only).
Raw review snapshots
Trustpilot raw snapshot: not available in current payload.
Google reviews raw snapshot: not available in current payload.
Fulfillment signals
Dropshipping: unlikely · China-linked fulfillment: unlikely · Local stock/production: likely · Confidence medium · Score nudge: -8
- Marketplace terms detected: unlikely
- Third-party seller language detected: unlikely
- Cross-border shipping detected: unlikely
- Supplier fulfillment detected: unlikely
- Separate shipment language detected: unlikely
- International shipping detected: unlikely
- Fulfillment confidence: low · Fulfillment score nudge: 0
- Corpus: 3 segments / 6620 chars · version: fulfillment-v2-marketplace · matched: none
- Signals of local production, EU origin, or local fulfillment were found.
Scoring detail (advanced)
Composite model uses raw impacts × confidence weights on the server. Positive numbers push the risk score up; negative numbers pull it down. Neutral rows are explanatory only — they must not be read as endorsement.
Applied trust-score cap after identity guardrails: 100/100 displayed trust.
Combined scoring signals (reviews, reputation, feeds, fulfillment…)
Trust-positive signals
- Local / EU production or stock signals (-8 raw · medium confidence) — Copy suggests local production, EU origin, or fast domestic fulfillment.
- Contact information available (-3 raw · medium confidence) — A contact or reach-us section appears on the site.
- Business name presence (-3 raw · medium confidence) — References Hema.
- Long-established domain registration (-16 raw · high confidence) — Domain has been registered for roughly 31 years—a strong legitimacy signal.
- Valid HTTPS baseline (-3 raw · low confidence) — HTTPS and certificate checks looked healthy in this run. This is supportive context, not proof of legitimacy.
- MX with SPF and DMARC present (-5 raw · medium confidence) — Public DNS shows mail exchangers plus SPF and DMARC records—a modest operational anchor when other reputation data is thin.
Website & technical observations
- Mixed Google review signal (+3 raw · low confidence) — Mixed customer experiences reported. Check reviews, delivery times and return policy before ordering. (Google 3.4 / 174 reviews).
- No bait keywords in domain (-5 raw · medium confidence) — The domain does not contain common bait-style sales keywords.
- Normal domain length (-5 raw · low confidence) — Hostname length looks typical rather than excessively long.
Detected risk patterns
- No clear business address on shop pages (+14 raw · medium confidence) — Enough shop text was captured but no obvious business or return address was found—this matters more when you may pay or share delivery details.
- Business legitimacy caution (+5 raw · low confidence) — Commercial shop detected with very few policy or legal pages visible.
- Recognized official brand domain (-6 raw · high confidence) — This domain matches a known official domain for Hema.
Incomplete or unavailable data
- Privacy-protected WHOIS/RDAP data (+3 raw · low confidence) — Registrar or RDAP hints suggest privacy/redaction on ownership fields.
Scam intelligence weighting (model)
Incomplete or unavailable data
- Privacy-protected WHOIS/RDAP data (+3 raw · low confidence) — Registrar or RDAP hints suggest privacy/redaction on ownership fields. · RDAP (SIDN)
Review collector notes (neutral)
Buckets distinguish provider errors, source outages, review-derived signals, and (rare) website crawler transparency—never merged with fraud intel.
- trustpilot_public · source_unavailable: Third-party Trustpilot snapshot: snapshot unavailable in this crawl (limits confidence only).
Key factors explained
Blended notes from patterns we detected, scam intelligence scoring, and optional AI assistance—not legal or financial advice.
- AI risk signal: medium
- Mixed evidence from customer reviews with a Google rating of 3.4 from 174 reviews, indicating some negative experiences.
- Privacy-protected ownership details suggest a lack of transparency, which can be a risk indicator.
AI model used in this run: yes
