Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 906 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.
App Store
This analysis describes version 3.6.7 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.6.7, updated 2026-09-26.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 3.6.7 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.6.7, updated 2026-09-25.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Bait and switch scammers. Got this in August, but hadn't had a chance to use it yet. They said the app was free. Went to get it connected and I find it that it costs a YEARLY subscription fee. Greedy company. Stay away. low quality garbage
bait and switch, as everyone else has noted.
Bait and switch scam. Got the Anova with app control and recipes. Worked great for a couple years. Now the old version of the app doesn't let me open recipes anymore and the new is trying to charge me for access. This was part of the…
Paywall blocks the basics
this was a great app, with a multitude of features, until they decided to introduce memberships to make you pay for those features. Now you have to subscribe to get recipes, push notifications, cook history and so on. Basically with the…
I'm not sure when the update happened but they removed ALL useful aspects of the app and put it behind a paywall (despite the fact that you already are purchasing an expensive device in order to use the app). So the app as-is is almost…
This app is terrible. Simple functionality like temp/time history and push notifications are locked behind a paywall. "Premium" subscription unlocks things like recipes / social media for my sous vide - wut? There are literally two…
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
What a truly awful experience, cannot do anything without seeing popups asking you to subscribe, and cannot be used offline. I'm returning this sous vide cooker, software unfortunately BY DESIGN makes this manufactured-waste.
Constant begging for $ timer fails — I only downloaded this because I need it to control the sous vide heater. I didn't realize it had no controls onboard. Download the app and it constantly begs for subscription to their service. Without…
Nagging subscription — The app does what it needs to do (keep the water at a consistent temp). The problem is every time I open it nags me to subscribe and then confirm that I do not want to subscribe. I get it, you’re pushing the…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
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.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.