We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2.3.6 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.3.6, updated 2026-08-11.
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
As usual — This is false advertising. Still have not seen an app that can really check Glucose levels. Also, it’s sure not free
Scam don’t even bother to download it doesn’t take your blood pressure — This is a pure scam that has false advertisement. It doesn’t even take your blood pressure. I should have known better!! Delete it at all costs!!
Disappointed — It doesn’t even record anything but your heart rate. Doesn’t record blood or anything as shown. You gotta check it yourself and put it on the app. Tracks it all but doesn’t record it. False advertisement
Aggressive ad load
Nothing but ads — This app is worthless unless you like watching one ad after another. When it finally gets to the main screen, it doesn’t even pretend to take your blood pressure. It just shows a default of 120 over 80 and asks if you…
Ads — The constant ads make this difficult to use.
Does not read your blood via camera - misleading — Misleading app promotion on instagram. Doesn’t read blood pressure via camera. It launch’s so many ads you don’t know what is the app. DO NOT INSTALL IT
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.