We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 7.92.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.92.0, updated 2026-09-29.
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
FRAUD BEWARE!! — DO NOT sign with them. I cancelled my yearly subscription with them 36 days prior to a renewal as they require a 30 day notice. I have been emailing back and forth with Phil from client engagement. Mindbody responded…
Disappointment — After signing and expressing concern in my clientele using the app because majority of them don’t use smart phones and this was my main concern in signing up . I was explain that I can cancel any time after use of 90 days…
Unable to cancel an appointment — Can’t cancel the appointment when tapping trash icon. Needs to be fixed
Price keeps rising
Stay away — I have used this for years. In the beginning it worked well for what we needed. Our monthly price has consistently increased. MB has switched merchant account services and I have been severely overcharged example a $400 charge…
do not get involved with them — If I could put zero I would. Outrageous I’m turning them in to BBB. Deceptive billing ( that 1.9% on cc no thats over 4% once you add the sneaky fees on the back of your bill that the rep couldn’t even…
Don’t choose MINDBODY! — DON’T CHOOSE MINDBODY! I have owned a gym for the last three years and decided to go with MINDBODY as my scheduling service. This was a huge mistake. MINDBODY raised my monthly rate THREE TIMES to more than double…
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.