Male Pelvic Floor Trainer
DGT YAZILIM SAGLIKVE DANISMANLIK HIZMETLERI ANONIM SIRKETISome warnings 5 users report trouble cancelling. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 93 reviews, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 27 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 1.5.27 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 1.5.27, updated 2026-10-06.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Improve your pelvic floor muscle control, strength, and overall body performance with Kegel Men — the leading men’s health app designed to enhance pelvic floor function, blood circulation, and vitality through a personalized Kegel Exercise Plan.
Spend just 5–10 minutes daily with Kegel Men to activate your pelvic floor muscles, improve endurance, and boost circulation — helping you achieve better performance, stability, and confidence in your body and daily life. No matter your age, Kegel exercises are highly effective for improving pelvic floor muscle strength, bladder control, and overall men’s health.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Hard to cancel: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 19 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.
93 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Very bad customer service — Worst app ever .. customer service 0 .. i mistakenly put a wrong email during signing up .. reached out to customer service through so many emails and nothing have been done .. they keep on charging me as I…
Criminal Enterprise — The initial hard-sell will give you an App. So technically you received a subscription. Then when you try and cancel, because the App is rubbish, it is near impossible. I lost count of the number of intentional…
Scam!! — The app works ok, BUT!! There is no way to cancel the App! I have tried everything! Finally I have had to get a new credit card so that they would quit trying to charge me! Horrible customer service! Just another App that once…
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.
No package has been scanned for this app, so nothing is published about what it ships. That is an absence of evidence, not a finding.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 1.5.27 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 1.5.27, updated 2026-10-06.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
• Improved UI optimization and layout support for foldable devices such as iPhone Duo and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold. • Resolved various bugs to enhance your experience and ensure smoother performance. • Performance and stability improvements throughout the app.
Appworthy
kegel-menAssessed 2026-10-27 from 93 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, 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.