We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2.8.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.8.2, updated 2026-09-25.
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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Bait and switch — This was a good free app then they decided to charge due to not making money on their contaminated formula. Their recall for having poor quality and safety is ruining this whole company
Bait and switch rip off — Had to switch to subscription model after getting sued, don’t bother, not worth the money.
Beware of bait and switch — Been using this app for 6 weeks. Just recently they decided they will now add a paywall with no free option available. I’d recommend starting with the more popular competitor app which has more features you can…
Paywall blocks the basics
New Update requires subscription?? — Love the app but have 3 star because of the new update coming next month. One parents will have to pay for a subscription to use the app. Sadly, we are forced to find another app
Was a 5 Star App… — Used the app for four weeks until they announced moving to a paid subscription model. If the app was fully free (or even if just the new guides were behind a paywall) I would easily give the app 5 stars. But charging…
Have to subscribe — Used the app a lot but since stating that we have to pay to use the app I no longer want to use it, having a child is already expensive, but to charge 8$ a month to track basic stuff is no longer a benefit… thanks for…
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.