What’s the catch? Aggressive ad load — reported by 58 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 12.1.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 12.1.1, updated 2026-09-28.
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.
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
Ads more Ads — I just downloaded this app for the first time in 10 years, and the amount of ads is absolutely ridiculous. When I used it years ago, I don’t remember seeing anything like this. Seriously…..what does Pokémon go have to do…
Too many adds and cannot view historical logs — This was a great app until a it became an advertisement; always seeking to gain money with subscriptions. And I cannot view old logs unless I pay for a subscription which was never an issue…
About the app — Too much ads and pop ups I have this app for 4-5 years and it seems they’re trying to push so many things and tracking so idk I’ll be changing elsewhere
Tracking and data collection concerns
Do not buy — Terrible community filled with rude people in an app that wants to you pay to track your period so they can sell your data
Update from — Their update removed all of my old info 🙄 all so they can sell my period data to big corps too
Selling Your Data!!! — I was not allowed to continue using the app to simply log my period until I confirmed what dates I was pregnant dating back to 2017! I assume this app is selling your data especially if you live in a RED state. Very…
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
Used to love it — This app was SO HANDY and HELPFUL for years! I loved it! Recently forced an update on me and the new format is absolutely AWFUL. There’s waayyyy too many pop ups and cover ups trying to convince you to pay for upgrades…
ANNOYING — I loved this app for soooo many years. Never used another cycle tracking app. I got pregnant & stopped using it. Recently when I went back to it there is CONSTANT pop ups of pushing you to pay for premium. Can’t open the app…
Glow refuses to delete my data — I am unable to delete my data as I signed up with iCloud. The app tells me to “Contact Glow Support”. I have emailed them 6 times, either getting no response, or a bot response telling me to delete through…
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.