What’s the catch? Nothing we could corroborate against this app.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 3.2.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.2.1, updated 2026-10-01.
What the analysis found
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
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
False Ad — I saw an ad on instagram saying it was free to use, but when i opened it i was hit with a free 7-day trial and then 14.99 per month IMMEDIATE DELETE.
False advertisement via instagram/facebook. Developers response means nothing — When I downloaded the app, it was because I was seeing advertisement somehow it’s free. I’m very displayed that the first thing I see you whenever I’m…
False advertising — The app try’s to do too much. A 7 day trial isn’t enough time to get the full experience. Also they need to stop the false advertising saying “Bevel is now free” it’s not free. If it was free there wouldn’t be a…
Users describe the free version as usable
All in 1 app — Never wrote a review before but this app is best and so easy all in one package, so convenient, I look forward to using this app everyday, I never tracked my fitness and nutrition before because you would have to use…
By far the best free health app on the App Store!! — I love this app!! It offers so many of the features I’ve had to pay for in the past from other apps I’ve since deleted. Everything I need is now in one place and I don’t have to pay for…
Wow! — I rarely ever review apps. But when I come across one like this. I have to. The free version is truly amazing and I appreciate the developers so much for what they offer. Eventually, I’ll probably pay for it. But for now. What it…
Paywall blocks the basics
Not free — Everything I’ve seen and read says it’s free. The only thing that it tells me is my stress level you have to pay for everything else.
Deceptive advertising… as expected — Downloaded because an ad said this app was free to use and I specifically remember the ad saying something along the lines of “your health shouldn’t be behind a paywall”. So of course curiosity got the…
Cool app — Very interesting app, but all the cool features is locked behind payment subscription. As someone with many different health apps that require subscription is not the best financial decision to continue to pay for many…
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.
Show 4 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.