What’s the catch? Multiple ad networks bundled — measured, backed by SDKs in the app package.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 10.93 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 10.93, updated 2026-09-22.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 10.93.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 10.93.0, updated 2026-09-21.
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 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.
Hard to cancel
DO NOT USE THIS SITE! It's ridiculously difficult to cancel. and when you eventually find a way to contact customer services, your 3 day cooling off period is over. and they expect a full year to be paid! I've used a couple of dating…
2026 - Now minimum 6 months membership which is a ripoff, all others over 1 or 3 months minimum. Put me right off. More fake profiles than real ones. Wrote to customer service and bang, 4 pages of copy & paste bla bla and ending with no…
As everyone said, it's hard to cancel the subscription and they don't offer month to month subscriptions. All in all its a bad app. Requiring a membership to chat to people. I have a membership but can't filter out or tell between the…
Paywall blocks the basics
You have to pay to do pretty much everything on the app, message people, see their profile pictures, any of the profile assistance. For an app that's trying to help people, it's not exactly very helpful. Nobody likes pay to play. That's…
not only do you have to pay to read and send messages. there are scammed on the sight. fake profiles scamming for money. claim "they can't see things, better to email" they want to collect your pictures then theyll attach it to a poster…
I've been on a couple apps by now, but none of them are this troubling. It seems promising with how many questions it asks to filter your account, but it's basically useless. You have to pay to see pictures? Emotions and personality…
Reports of unexpected charges
Criminal. Create an account and pay for the first installment only to find out there's barely anyone using it within 60 miles. Then you want to cancel but they wont let you without charging for future payments. No phone numbers to call…
there's like no users on this app do not pay for it it's not worth it. if you do not live in a specific state in their terms and conditions you cannot get a refund. I've only been on it for 24 hours and I stupidly paid for a full year and…
such a scam, save your money. matches you with people too far away even if you change your settings. the dating pool is small, and they know this, so they only let you pay for multiple months at a time. When you ask for a refund or just…
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.