Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 401 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.
This analysis describes version 4.57.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.57.2, updated 2026-09-07.
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.
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
Used to be great, now they limit how many logs you can make per day. Many of the useful features we used with our first 2 children that were free are now hidden behind a paywall. Because of the stingyness, we're being forced to find a…
Could be a great app, If it weren't for the annoying fact that there's no way to hide all the unwanted feature tiles (insights, patterns, analysis, tips, forecast, GlowGPT) from the main feed. Free users get "useless-Ad-placeholders" of…
Its an excellent application. I'm a free user and although my options are limited but I'm still happy to keep track of my baby essentials. The paid version seemed very expensive and the only thing that annoys me is the constant nagging by…
Aggressive ad load
Final update: switched to Nara Baby. This app now limits the number of logs in a day to a only 20 times. Ads, ads, ads. Did I mention ads? Because you're going to get ads Removed totals of previous day entries to be put behind a paywall…
terrible app, virtually unsuable between the nonstop popup ads and limited number of posts for free users. ads don't go away if you pay for their service either. incredibly greedy devs who ruined what used to be a decent app
Was using the app perfectly fine. Logging my babies feeding when the recent update now limits how many times I can log! What's the point of having the app, then? I've had it over 7 years with my other babies and was great and helpful…
Paywall blocks the basics
Final update: switched to Nara Baby. This app now limits the number of logs in a day to a only 20 times. Ads, ads, ads. Did I mention ads? Because you're going to get ads Removed totals of previous day entries to be put behind a paywall…
Bait and switch. We picked this app because it allowed both spouses as caregivers, unlimited logs, and the ability to export our data. Now, they've reduced the log limit to 20 a day and do not allow exporting unless you pay for premium…
Used to be great, now they limit how many logs you can make per day. Many of the useful features we used with our first 2 children that were free are now hidden behind a paywall. Because of the stingyness, we're being forced to find a…
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.