Appworthy
App Store
Version 26.2 · 2026-02-05
• New Device Support: The app now works seamlessly on the latest iPhones. • Apple Health Sync: Connect with Apple Health to sync your cycle data between devices.
App Store rating4.7★2.6K ratings
PriceFreeIn-app $2.99
Age4+Store age rating
Size59 MBiPhone download
CategoryHealth & Fitness
DeveloperAnastasia Kovba
What we found
Full reportToo little checked to say Only 50 reviews read, too few to say.
Money
- Free to download · in-app purchases $2.99 (1 listed).
- If you subscribe through the store, cancel in iPhone Settings → your name → Subscriptions. Deleting the app doesn’t cancel a subscription.
From our automated analysis, 27 Oct 2026.
This analysis describes version 26.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 26.2, updated 2026-02-05.
Preview
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
About this app
Discover your body’s rhythm with a scientifically based fertility tracker designed to help you plan or avoid pregnancy naturally.
Simply enter the first day of your last period, and the app predicts your next period, ovulation day, and the most fertile and least fertile days of your cycle.
With Apple Health sync, your data stays automatically updated across all your Apple devices — so your fertility insights are always with you.
* Scientifically Backed Methods *
Our app includes two baby gender prediction methods:
• Popular Method – a theoretical approach based on the well-known theory by Landrum Shettles, which suggests that the timing within the fertile window may influence the baby’s gender.
• Scientific Method – a statistical, research-based approach developed by Rodrigo Guerrero, grounded in large-scale data from thousands of women.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The full report
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Findings and evidence
This assessment published no findings. That is a statement about what the evidence we had could show, not a clearance of the app.
What reviewers report
No review-based observation is published in this assessment. That does not establish that reviewers had no problems.
Measurements
“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.
From store data and reviews
Developer replies to reviews
Replies to fewer than 1 review in 20
Price in the store description
The store description doesn’t list prices (most don’t)
Cancelling, in the store description
The store description doesn’t say how to cancel (most don’t)
Themes reported by reviewers
No theme reported
Counted from the reviews we have read for this app. "No theme reported" means no theme reached our reporting threshold — it is not a finding that nothing is wrong with this app, and we do not say it is.
Five-star share of ratings
80–89% five-star
Arithmetic on the stores' own published rating counts. It says nothing about why the ratings fall where they do.
In the app package we scanned
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.
Sensitive permissions
Not assessed
No package has been scanned for this app
Analytics or tracking SDKs in the scanned package
Not assessed
No package has been scanned for this app
Advertising SDKs in the scanned package
Not assessed
No package has been scanned for this app
How we know
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
Versions and dates analysed
This analysis describes version 26.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 26.2, updated 2026-02-05.
Store update history
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
Assessment record
- Status
- Automated analysis
- App identifier
menstrual-cycle-tracker- Assessment date
- 27 Oct 2026
- Sources used
- 2 independent signals: user reviews and the store listing
- Reviews read
- 50
- Package examined
- No package scan
- Human inspection
- Not completed
Assessed 2026-10-27 from 50 user reviews and the store listing. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
How we know
- Measurement vocabulary
- 1.4
How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-27 Version analyzed: 26.22 independent signals50 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews and the store listing. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest and the store privacy disclosure.
Store facts
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
App Store
- Store rating
- 4.67 ★ · 2,571 ratings
- Version
- 26.2
- Updated
- 5 Feb 2026
- Price
- Free · In-app purchases
- Age rating
- 4+
- Size
- 59 MB
- Developer
- Anastasia Kovba
- Category
- Health & Fitness
- Listing price
- Free · In-app purchases
Purchases the store lists
What this app sells
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.
Buy once1
Full VersionLifetime$2.99
Method and limits
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Two independent signals are read — user reviews and the store listing — 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.
Limits of this report
- A package scan is static. It identifies code and text in one Android build. It does not measure a live ad session, test a deletion request, or count the steps needed to cancel.
- Reviews keep their sample. A review-only charge shows distinct reviewers, the share and the sample size, and is published only once it clears that label’s published threshold. Calibration labels are machine-drafted and not yet confirmed by a person.
- Not assessed is a state. It is never a zero and never a pass.
- A missing label is not a clean bill of health. It means the evidence did not support one, not that the app is problem-free.
Not yet human-reviewed. A hands-on test can confirm or contradict a finding and adds its own measurements; it does not change a measurement row. Hands-on inspections are not yet open.
Request a correction
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.