MyNetDiary is the calorie tracker and food diary you'll actually stick with:…
MyNetDiary.comSome warnings 10 users report the basics being behind a paywall; 2 things we found but could not confirm. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 743 reviews, the Android app’s code, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 21 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 9.9.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-21 .
The store lists the version as varying by device, updated 2026-09-24.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
MyNetDiary is the calorie tracker and food diary you'll actually stick with: fast, accurate, and ad-free. Log your food in seconds with the free barcode scanner, Meal Scan, or quick search. Then get on with your day.
Proven Weight Loss Results
• Active members who tracked their diet consistently lost an average of 1.4 lbs per week (MyNetDiary Efficacy Report).
• Over 32 million users have chosen MyNetDiary for calorie tracking, weight loss and healthy eating - many switched from other diet and nutrition apps.
Recognized Excellence
Ranked #1 in Forbes Health's Best Weight Loss Apps of 2025. Scored highest of 30 apps for behavioral strategies in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. The New York Times called it simpler, quicker, and better-looking than the competition. Featured in Today's Dietitian.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Specific evidence of a useful property, within the stated scope.
Offers a one-time or lifetime purchase: "One payment. Premium forever. No subscriptions, no renewals - just lifetime access."
The app's own text offers a one-time or lifetime purchase, or reviewers report that the price is stated clearly.
Package artefact
Appworthy
sha256:7c001f036f74608d1bc8d2b8f9bb4ce1eee2f6cfca0853546d0dc2f02bade31dNo advertising or mediation SDK among the 5 SDKs detected in the package
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
Package artefact
sha256:7c001f036f74608d1bc8d2b8f9bb4ce1eee2f6cfca0853546d0dc2f02bade31dThe developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 10 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 74 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
Purchase screen steers the choice: "Best value"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The purchase screen arrives with one plan already framed as the recommended or most popular choice, so the default is the app's preference rather than the user's. We do not compare the plans' prices, and only the app's own text evidences this, so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
Package artefact
sha256:7c001f036f74608d1bc8d2b8f9bb4ce1eee2f6cfca0853546d0dc2f02bade31dDeadline pressure in the app's own copy: "Limited time offer"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own purchase copy attaches a deadline to buying — a countdown, 'offer ends in', 'limited time' — or ships a countdown view on a purchase-screen layout.
Package artefact
sha256:7c001f036f74608d1bc8d2b8f9bb4ce1eee2f6cfca0853546d0dc2f02bade31dReviewers describe the free version as usable: raised by 7 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 106 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Reviewers repeatedly say the free version is worth using on its own. Nothing we can measure corroborates that — a free listing with in-app purchases looks identical whether the free tier is generous or a demo — so this is published as what reviewers say, not as a measured credit.
Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.
743 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY. You are led to believe the app will be a great tool, and nothing about cost is mentioned up front. AFTER you list all your goals and enter your personal information, that's when it reveals several features require…
the app works great for the majority of people, however, for those of us who are disabled this app will not work for free. RMR based calorie trackers are placed behind a paywall. I definitely love this app and would recommend it to my…
No sampled quote is attached to this observation.
A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.
“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.
Android package 9.9.0, scanned 21 Oct 2026. These describe that package, not the current store version.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 9.9.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-21 .
The store lists the version as varying by device, updated 2026-09-24.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
No release notes were provided for this version.
calorie-counter-google-com-fourtechnologies-mynetdiary-adAssessed 2026-10-21 from 743 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Write to [email protected], or use the form. Name the finding, the app version and the evidence that needs correcting. Factual corrections are free and never depend on buying anything.