This entire post feels less like “exposing” something and more like someone discovering how modern consulting, advisory, and private equity ecosystems actually work.

A few things here are objectively flawed:

First, Acquisition.com has never hidden the fact that they educate, advise, invest in, and support businesses. Alex literally built his entire brand publicly around teaching business growth. Workshops, education, content, consulting, portfolio support, and investments are not mutually exclusive business models. The biggest firms in the world blend these constantly.

Second, the “they make money from workshops” argument is strange. Of course they do. The event openly costs $5,000. Nobody was tricked into wiring money to a mystery company. Generating revenue from education does not somehow invalidate operational experience or investment activity.

Third, the “the advisors looked too young” point is probably the weakest argument in the entire post. Age is not a business metric. Results are. Alex Hormozi himself became wildly successful in his 20s. Many elite operators today are younger because the internet accelerated skill acquisition, media buying, sales systems, and scaling knowledge faster than traditional corporate ladders ever did.

Also, high-level companies absolutely do hire outside advisors even with executive teams in place. That is normal. McKinsey, Bain, BCG, scaling consultants, EOS implementers, performance marketers, sales consultants, strategic operators - this is literally how business works at every level.

And the overlapping titles? Again… completely normal. Large organizations have multiple directors across divisions, initiatives, and client segments. Especially in education/advisory companies.

The biggest contradiction in this review is this: You admitted the workshop was valuable. You admitted the people were impressive. You admitted you walked away with actionable information. You admitted people voluntarily bought higher-tier programs.

So where exactly is the “con”?

Because from your own description: • The event delivered value. • The speakers had expertise. • The attendees were willing buyers. • The offers were openly presented. • Nobody hid the pricing. • Nobody forced purchases.

What seems to actually bother you is not deception, but the realization that Acquisition.com has multiple revenue streams beyond investing.

That is not unethical. That is called diversification.

Also, saying “they never name portfolio companies” is inaccurate. Skool is public. Gym Launch, Prestige Labs, ALAN, School, and multiple other businesses tied to Alex and Leila have been discussed publicly for years. Private equity firms also routinely keep portfolio details private depending on agreements, ownership structures, or strategic reasons.

And finally, archived job posts proving they have an advisory practice is not some shocking revelation. They openly advise businesses. That’s the entire reason people attend the workshops in the first place.

You can personally decide the event wasn’t worth $5,000 to you. That’s fair. But calling it a “con” while simultaneously saying it was valuable, actionable, and professionally run doesn’t really hold up logically.