Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-06 from 989 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
App Store
This analysis describes version 12.17.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 12.17.1, updated 2026-10-02.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 12.15.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 12.16.0, updated 2026-09-30.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 12.15.0, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 12.16.0 · 2026-09-30
No release notes were provided for this version.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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.
Aggressive ad load
Constant ad pop ups for other dating apps, at this point I'm not sure anyone on here is real.
@Chispa Honest feedback — your app seriously needs improvement. The distance filter doesn’t work at all. If I set my preference to 20 miles, I shouldn’t be matching with people 100+ miles away. That defeats the entire purpose. The…
Absolute Garbage. Nothing but ads and Fat chick's. Im paying a monthly subscription and still can't see the profiles of people that like me. cancelled
Paywall blocks the basics
So many features are locked behind a paywall. The app runs slow, so sometimes you delete or block someone on accident because of delayed input. Sometimes buttons disappear. Can't really recommend it. It's not good enough for meeting new…
you better be rich and own an airplane, after one day, no matter what you set your preferences, you get NOTHING but matches that require a plane ticket. you charge for a service that you refuse to provide. you put everything behind a…
Never had a single match or date from this site. It feels like they purposely show blurred images of people who supposedly liked you, but keep everything behind a paywall to pressure users into paying. I stayed hopeful at first, but after…
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
So many pop ups — Literally every other swipe you have some kind of pop up coming up to either upgrade to pro or to pay for a subscription on another one of their apps. It’s such an egregious amount of times to have something pop up
Worthless — So many bugs, can’t login, the subscription is not honor, keeps telling one to upgrade when it’s been done. The price is crazy for a worthless app but is expected from these creators, only steeling money from people.
Purchase Restoration problems — The app is incredibly glitchy and there really isn’t much of a selection when it comes to members. I wanted to restore a purchase I made, but the app kept giving me an error prompt when I tried restoring…
What this app sells
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.