Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 940 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 6.39.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.39.1, updated 2026-09-21.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 6.39.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.39.1, updated 2026-09-23.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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.
Hard to cancel
By design their technology does not let you change or cancel a prescription that they write without consulting with you first. They wrote the wrong prescription and then I was unable to cancel it and they charged me over $1,000 which I'm…
the 2 star is for the app not the Him's treatment. the treatment, I will recommend. the app is lacking the change of subscription or cancellation options. you have to contact them to change or cancel your subscription which is illegal…
App is confusing. It blocks me from renewing prescriptions, adding new treatments, or even just viewing all products. I can't cancel an old prescription or add the one that I want. Overall, I haven't been able to do anything that I want…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Deceptive Marketing — The pricing shown at time of signup is not real pricing - completely misleading and the app experience is pretty bad where you can’t access support inside the app
Dishonest advertising — There is no weight loss medication available for $149 per month. It’s available after you pay $149 per month for the consultation. Would you start off with such a blatantly dishonest outfit? There are local doctors…
Beware of what you are signing up for — This company has misleading adds and very bad customer support. They will not refund my membership fee which I signed up accidentally due to misleading add and requested for refund within minutes
Reports of unexpected charges
One of my subscriptions "expired". This means they no longer send you the product. imagine my surprise over a year later to notice they were STILL charging me for products that they know were never sent! They refused to reimburse me due…
these people are thieves. I paid for 3 months and tried to cancel after a few days and they refused to refund anything. They robbed me for 150$. don't waste your time with these crooks. update. still no refund or response from support.
Impossible to cancel subscription after 1st month. Had to call bank to make sure they didnt keep charging me. Contacting support.hims is basically sending a email and hoping they respond withing 24 hours. What a Joke
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.