We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 1.2.4 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.2.4, updated 2026-08-17.
What the analysis found
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
Liars!! ISN’T FREE — I LOATHE FALSE ADVERTISING!!
False advertisement — You have to manually put in everything but HR that’s not what they advertised
False advertising — Your app does not give directions on how to use it. I want my money back
Aggressive ad load
Patient patient — Too many ads
Don’t get — Absolutely the worst app ever. Nothing but adds non stop and then it doesn’t even take your blood pressure unless you pay 20$ a month. F that. It’s a garbage app and it even looks like amateur hour in the app. They need to…
Do not recommend — Difficult to work. Not accurate. Lots of pop up ads. Do not recommend
Hard to cancel
My formal complaint — Your app really does not work at all and you have charged me for annual subscription fee without my authorization and you are telling me that I cannot cancel it for the duration of one year regardless of my request…
Cancel — There is no way to cancel my subscription. App is not what I wanted.
False advertising — This app does provide option of checking g blood pressure as it suggest, it just allows you to manually track it. I need to cancel and I don’t see where to cancel. Surprise they make it difficult to cancel.
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.