Some warnings 8 users report a free trial turning into a charge; 7 users report the basics being behind a paywall. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 500 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 7.4.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 7.4.0, updated 2026-10-14.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
FLEXIBILITY TRAINING & CONDITIONING
- Get your front, middle, and standing splits
- Improve your backbends
- Gain strength to support your increased ROM
- Accelerate your flexibility progress
- Break through a flexibility plateau
- Finally make stretching a habit
- Join a flexibility challenge to reach your goals faster
MOBILITY TRAINING
- Improve athletic performance
- Increase strength (at the end range of your motion)
- Reach your full movement potential
- Eliminate muscle stiffness
- Fix muscular imbalances
- Improve your overall agility
- Decrease risk of injury
- Function normally and pain-free through your daily activities
FEEL-GOOD STRETCH SESSIONS
- Recover sooner
- Sleep better
- Eliminate lower back pain, neck pain, and hip pain
- Increase energy levels
- Reduce stress, recharge, rewind
- Improve posture
PERSONALIZED TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Facts that add context without being a charge.
In-app purchases run from USD 4.99 to USD 179.99 — a 36x spread across 10 items
The disclosed in-app purchases span an unusually wide price range. Published as context: the cheapest and priciest items may be different kinds of product entirely, so the spread alone deducts nothing.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Trial converts to a charge: raised by 8 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 63 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The free trial demands a payment method up front and/or rolls into a paid subscription with no usable warning.
Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 7 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 71 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.
Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.
500 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Charged me — Signed up for a 7 day free trial only to immediately be charged for the entire year! Scam. Now I get to try to get this payment canceled.
Be careful! — I signed up for a free trial but they charged me $20. Never got my refund. It’s just shady business. The app itself is not great. Trainers are annoying and instructions unclear. Pliability is so much better. Safe your money.
What a joke! — I of course tried the “Free Trial” and was IMMEDIATELY charged $19.99. They refuse to help me which is fine, I canceled and am leaving this poor review. Don’t waste your time. Their customer service danced around everything…
I am a gymnast — I am a Gymnast and I always worry about loosing flexibility during breaks and stuff like that. I figured this app was perfect to maintain any flexibility I needed! It seemed to work good But EVERYTHING COSTS MONEY!! Not…
Pay for everything — You have to pay to do everything 😡
Terrible — You have to pay for everything. Why not just say that before making me sign up? The app made it seem as though some videos are free and some aren’t. You shouldn’t allow people sign up for something without them knowing you…
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 7.4.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 7.4.0, updated 2026-10-14.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
Performance and stability improvements
Appworthy
stretchitAssessed 2026-10-27 from 500 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.