We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 3.5.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.5.5, updated 2026-09-23.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
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
Too many ads!! — Just downloaded the app to test and see if it works for me. But my god way too many ads. Makes it very annoying and hard to like. I know it’s free to download but make it enjoyable so that we can enjoy it and maybe…
Overrated Excel spreadsheet — All data with the exception of heartbeat is manually entered by the user. There are no Bluetooth connectivity with any medical device, such as O2 sensors , blood pressure monitors, and glucose testers. There…
Don’t waste your time — I tried the free version of this app and was very disappointed. It takes forever to get through ALL the pop up ads to get to a place where you can access the one “free” service. I thought of doing the subscription…
Hard to cancel
do not get — cannot cancel
No way to cancel — Don’t buy this there is no way to cancel if you don’t want it
AL — Can’t cancel as easy as they say
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Just another scam — Why would they say it’s absolutely free when it cost you $9.99 every week. Just another case of false advertising
Horrible — False advertisement
False Advertisement — Not completely free as advertised it cost $9.99/week
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.