We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 7.0.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.0.1, updated 2026-09-03.
What the analysis found
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.
Hard to cancel
Deceptive practices — The free trial has proven very difficult to cancel. When I signed up- I tried to cancel after my first yea. They allowed cancellation by phone only and I was in hold for almost an hour. I did this and was given a…
Buyer beware — I am writing this to warn other potential subscribers about a significant lack of transparency regarding this app's pricing. The app prominently advertises a discount via an in-app link; however, please be aware that this…
Not worth it - Hard to cancel — The concept is great, but the execution is not. The customer service is even worse. They make it hard to cancel and when you do they say you didn’t and charge you again. Would not recommend.
Reports of unexpected charges
Love the idea, but the execution is awful — I did a free trial a while ago, but didn’t actually use the app or test any recipes. This week I decided to try using the app again and actually meal plan and prepare the meals, and I noticed…
FREE TRIAL SCAM — I used the free trial for about 10 mins before I realized that the app wasn’t going to work for my needs. Which is fine, however they charged my card immediately and refused to refund my money! BEWARE! If this happens to…
No refunds on missed cancellation. Out $65. — A week after realizing I forgot to cancel my yearly subscription I messaged them for a refund but they said no. No refund policy is brutal. * emailed the response to this review and never…
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.