Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 504 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 3.30.146 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.30.146, updated 2026-09-22.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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
This dating app advertises to be free, but it is not. Yes, you can view the prospects, you can 🤍 or X, and you can "reveal" 1 like every 24 hours. The likes you receive are blurred, so your choice to reveal is completely random unless…
Unless you think "gentry" includes high school graduates, men who are clearly high as a kite in their pictures or graduated "the school of hard knocks" skip this app. it's the worst kind of misleading advertising to market yourself as…
No different to the others. A lot of promises but doesn't deliver without OVERLY EXPENSIVE cost for what it is.
Paywall blocks the basics
Just downloaded the App. Didn't know you have to pay for everything. Can't respond to direct messages without paying. I'm guessing you get a certain amount of pages you can go through before it starts requiring a payment. Not seeing too…
Update:: Free to sign up. BUT you must pay to use MOST of the features like see who likes you and second look. like I said smh .. I really hate that you have to pay to use everything on this site. smh I wanted to give it a try but I guess…
after reviewing I did a controlled study since the owners said I was lying. I made two accounts one paid other not. Had people I know make accounts and like both. The unpaid account hid likes behind a paywall as reviewed before. Paid…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read — user reviews — and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports 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.