We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
App Store
This analysis describes version 296.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 296.0, updated 2026-09-30.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 271.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 272.0, updated 2026-10-01.
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 5
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
I don't want to pay for premium. If I did, I would have done it the first time you asked me to pay for it, not the billion other times. If anything, you've put me off paying for it for life. I open the app to log in two symptoms for the…
having to wait five seconds after tracking for a premium ad is insane
would give 0 stars if i could. the ads are relentless. switching to a paper calendar once I copy down my data off this hellscape. don't offer a free option if you're going to shove ads down my throat every 2 clicks. 0/5
Paywall blocks the basics
I think the app is okay, you do have to pay to use anything other than the period tracker. Even then, you have to pay for certain things to be able to use it. I feel its ridiculous, none of the people who download these kinds of apps want…
Why are you guys locking the past period information behind a paywall? Im not asking for an entire analysis when I just want to be able to compare my cycles to previous ones and I used to be able to do that but now they're all blurry. Why…
I started with this app in 2019 and although there're more options for daily tracking there's also less free functions now. Basic analysis is behind a paywall where I used to at least be able to see the previous period stats. As someone…
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
After pushing through with all the updates, this is no longer the app it used to be. It's now like many other apps trying to squeeze money out of the users and the pushy Clue Plus ads doesn't help. I have deleted my account and…
It's not as accurate as it says in the description and mine is usually easy to remember but sometimes I forget so I count on the app to help me but it's usually no hope cause I am always the one updating it saying I started my period also…
Good tracker BUT.. too many pop ups for premium. Open app: pop up. Track something: pop up. Every single time. I understand money needs to be made to keep our data safe but it's too much pushing. 7.99 for premium a month is also obsurd…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.