We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 10.37 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 10.37, updated 2026-10-02.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
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.
Aggressive ad load
Good app for tracking calories — This has been a good app for tracking my calories on the daily basis. I really have no complaints for looking up foods using barcodes or just by searching. It worked fantastic. But it is extremely…
Great but ADs still!!! — I paid for this app and I’m still getting constant ADs for the premium subscription version. It’s sooo annoying. What did I pay for? I don’t need AI. It’s not that complicated. I just want to log my calories and…
App is ok — I paid for the app thinking that was it. After posting a one star review here some weeks ago, I got a response that let me know how to turn off the premium ads. Until turning the ads off there was constant ads to upgrade to a…
Paywall blocks the basics
Just an advertising platform for premium subscription — This is pretty much the light+ version of the free version Tons of features are present but locked behind the premium paywall. To make things worse, the app is constantly shoving…
was great but now is mid — Adding macros to custom foods used to be free… now you have to pay. I literally already paid for the app 😭 Why y’all being greedy
it’s literally the same as the free one… — there’s like nothing different except like 2 things. everything is still locked behind a “premium” paywall. it’s dumb. and a waste of money…just get the free one or go premium.
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
Just an advertising platform for premium subscription — This is pretty much the light+ version of the free version Tons of features are present but locked behind the premium paywall. To make things worse, the app is constantly shoving…
Great App but it Badgers you to subscribe — I like this app and I want it to work for me since I paid for this version. However, you should be allowed to avoid the constant badgering to pay for a subscription service for different things…
Pop Ups — Keeps asking to buy a subscription
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.