Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 1,226 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 4.59.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.59.1, updated 2026-09-14.
Google Play
We cannot tell which version of the app this analysis describes. It was run 2026-10-04 , and the app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version VARY, updated 2026-09-11.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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 have been using Cronometer daily for the better part of 5 years It has a very user centric and appealing interface with a large database of food that is generated by the community. The in-app advertisements are getting out of hand and…
It's actually a great app. And I don't mind the free version being ad-supported. But a popup ad that comes up while you're typing and tricks you to open it half the time, or freezes the app somehow just isn't it. I'd be willing to pay to…
Ads every 15 seconds
Paywall blocks the basics
great options available without being behind the paywall. (there is a payable option but it's not NECESSARY for basic tracking)
Way better than MyFitnessPal — I used MyFitnessPal for over a decade, but I recently discovered Cronometer, and I’m honestly impressed by how much more value it provides for free. Features like barcode scanning, which MyFitnessPal used to…
Can’t close ads — I understand ads pay for the free version, but when you can’t close the ads and have to reload the app, something is wrong.
Users describe the free version as usable
A1 trackerrr — I never ever leave reviews, nothing is ever good enough to leave a review. This is amazing. Easy to use, you can just scan the barcode of the food labels and adjust the serving you used and BOOM done. You can also add…
The best — If you’re going to take the time to track… make it Cronometer. The free version is great but the extra fee is totally worth the money. It’s worth the investment. Easy to use and fast!
Free is great — I don’t know why you get so much for free. Maybe the market become more competitive with AI. But I’m surprised.
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
Show 1 more purchase we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.