We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 7.28 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.28, updated 2026-02-18.
What the analysis found
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.
Paywall blocks the basics
Lifetime membership is a lie — I paid for a lifetime membership years ago. Hadn’t used the app recently, redownloaded and somehow none of my emails are in their system. Now everything is behind a paywall. Lies.
Underwhelming features with lots of ads — Second time trying this app as a basic calorie counter and it just is not up to snuff. Most of what you try to scan just flat out doesn’t, or times it’ll tell me the scanning feature is locked…
false advertising — why would u include nutrition information as a promotional tool under the basic plan, yet it’s locked behind a subscription paywall?
Tracking and data collection concerns
Like most, it spies in you — This app used to be great, but I stopped using it for a while and now that I started using it again, it keeps saying that there is a network error. To make sure I am connected to WiFi or cellular service. It…
PRIVACY INVASION! Can Apple even control tracking? — This app, which acknowledges it tracks your contact info and identifiers, doesn’t even show up in the list of apps on the iPhone. How can I control or limit tracking when it isn’t even…
Obviously trying to steal your info — Doesn’t take a software programmer to realize and discover they are going to sell your information along with using your device and other accounts and email to figure out your real name and who you…
Aggressive ad load
Underwhelming features with lots of ads — Second time trying this app as a basic calorie counter and it just is not up to snuff. Most of what you try to scan just flat out doesn’t, or times it’ll tell me the scanning feature is locked…
Okay App — This app is okay. if you want to track your water, track your food, obtain nutrition information and ingredients information it’s fine. I like that you find some foods from restaurants,takeout and drive thru’s. Too many Ads!!…
Keeps kicking me out of App — Every time I add a food item to a meal it kicks me out of the app. Aside from that the app has been pretty good and I like how it goes into majority of the nutrition like vitamin d, potassium, calcium, sugar…
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.