Assignmentgeek is also a writing company. Their claims are bigger than their credibility. Whether they can provide work or not is going to be presented in the following review.
Assignmentgeek claims to deliver 100% plagiarism-free works. Nevertheless, this is not correct for the reason that after evaluating their models of documents, provided on the corporation site, we discovered around 60 plagiarism. This means that the authors are not qualified. They do not use Turnitin. They use some cheap software. In spite of claiming to have more than a thousand authors, no single proof of their qualification is given so, you will hire your writers blindly.
Almost all kind of assignment services is offered by assignmentgeek. However, do not trust them. They are scammers and fraudulent. We do not recommend them.
In prices, they are also not decent. Their prices are not projected. But getting their pricing quotes need you to provide email conversation for negotiation. This is an evil system as the corporation then charges every client per their wishes. You should ignore them.
In support, we have been learnt by past clients that they use the immoral language after order placement. They also threaten customers to contact university when they ask for a repayment. This is not a good feature of them. They are liars. In addition to this, their stated location of Uk origin is fak. They do not operate from Uk but some far region of India.
The delivery rate of this fine but the delivery quality is worst. Their writers do not follow customers instructions and deliver irrelevant materials.
Assignmentgeek is not trustworthy due to its frauds. Their writers are not qualified while customer care agents are fraudsters. Therefore, we do not recommend them.
Alex P. - University of Southampton, Aerospace Engineering (January 2026)
Assignmentgeek.co.uk produced a flight mechanics assignment that used NASA aerodynamic coefficients rather than the ESDU data sheets required for UK aerospace engineering. Their drag calculation used incompressible flow equations at Mach 0.8, which is clearly in the compressible regime requiring Prandtl-Glauert corrections. They cited a 2008 textbook for structural fatigue analysis instead of the current EASA Certification Specifications, and their structural load analysis used US FAA regulations rather than the applicable EASA CS-25. The assignment arrived 12 days late and Turnitin showed 47% similarity. When I raised the fundamental aerodynamic error, they said "the physics is the same regardless of the speed" — demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of compressible flow.
Hannah L. - University of Dundee, Dentistry (February 2026)
I ordered a clinical case study from Assignmentgeek.co.uk and received work that applied medical ethics principles without reference to the current GDC Standards for the Dental Team 2013, using outdated language around patient consent that predates the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 Supreme Court ruling that fundamentally changed informed consent law in the UK. Their radiographic interpretation section cited dose reference levels from 2001 guidance rather than the updated 2019 PHE DRL publication. 10 days late with 39% Turnitin similarity. Their response to my concerns was that "consent standards are universal," showing they had no knowledge of the landmark Montgomery ruling.
Mohammed I. - University of Manchester, Islamic Finance LLM (March 2026)
Assignmentgeek.co.uk produced an Islamic finance dissertation that confused murabaha and musharaka structures throughout, treating profit-and-loss sharing as functionally equivalent to cost-plus financing. Their regulatory analysis applied AAOIFI standards without noting that UK Islamic finance is regulated under FCA rules and PRA guidance, not AAOIFI. They cited a Malaysian Bank Negara ruling as applicable UK precedent, which shows no understanding of how Islamic finance is regulated in the UK. OSCOLA citation format was absent despite being specified. 11 days late with 43% Turnitin similarity. Refund refused and their support insisted "all Islamic finance is governed by the same principles globally."
Chloe W. - Cardiff University, Urban Planning (January 2026)
The planning law assignment from Assignmentgeek.co.uk applied the English National Planning Policy Framework throughout a piece explicitly set in Cardiff, Wales. Wales has its own Planning Policy Wales, the Future Generations and Well-being Act 2015, and the Active Travel Act 2013, all of which were entirely ignored. Their planning permission analysis cited the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 without noting that Welsh planning devolution means significant procedural differences apply. The work was 9 days late and Turnitin flagged 41% similarity. My tutor immediately identified the use of English planning policy for a Welsh question and the assignment received a fail grade. Assignmentgeek refused any refund.
Jack N. - University of Leicester, Criminology (February 2026)
Assignmentgeek.co.uk produced a criminology essay on UK knife crime policy that cited Home Office crime statistics from 2018 despite the 2023 data being publicly available, and referenced the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 without noting the subsequent Offensive Weapons Act 2019 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 sentencing provisions updated in 2022. Their sentencing analysis completely ignored the Sentencing Council guidelines, instead applying vague and inaccurate descriptions of judicial discretion. Arrived 8 days late with 40% Turnitin similarity including obvious Wikipedia paraphrasing. When I pointed out the outdated statistics, they told me to "add the recent figures myself."
Lucy T. - University of Bath, Biochemistry (March 2026)
The biochemistry lab report Assignmentgeek.co.uk produced cited enzyme kinetics values from a 1987 paper without noting they had been superseded by more accurate measurements, and their protein structure analysis section described secondary structures using Ramachandran plot boundaries from pre-2000 definitions. Their PCR protocol described annealing temperatures without specifying primer Tm, and their gel electrophoresis section gave running conditions without specifying buffer composition or voltage — both essential for reproducibility. 13 days late and Turnitin showed 52% similarity, the highest I have ever seen flagged for a practical report. Assignmentgeek.co.uk refused to engage with the technical criticisms and offered no refund.
Daniel R. - University of Exeter, Business Management (January 2026)
Assignmentgeek.co.uk produced a strategic management assignment applying Porter's Five Forces without acknowledging any post-2010 critiques or updates to the framework, treating it as current cutting-edge analysis. Their financial analysis used pre-pandemic revenue projections for the chosen company as though 2019 figures represented current performance, and their SWOT analysis contained generic points entirely unrelated to the specific company in my brief. References were formatted inconsistently, mixing Harvard and APA styles across the same bibliography. 10 days late with 38% Turnitin similarity. I specifically asked for Harvard referencing and got a mixture of styles. Their support said "minor formatting issues don't affect the grade" — an assumption they had no basis to make.
DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. this service is so bad. the paper was very bad, I have no idea where the writer was from but the paper was written in another language them translated to English with google translate. Do not believe anything they say to you because it is most likely a lie. not only was the paper late it was absolutely awful and they are refusing to refund my £580.
The students don't find any customer support from the team when placing their order. The writers are unable to speak on time to the queries and students notice it as a robust danger for them. They are not offering revisions once the completion of the order. You’ve to be compelled to position a new order.
The service of the assignmentgeek is for students which are poor and unable to make customers satisfied. The work they deliver sometimes doesn't make any sense with the research topic. They are making others fool by presenting themselves as perfect and skilled.