We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 14.32.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 14.32.0, updated 2026-08-27.
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
It was way better when it was free and without it selling you medication. — I used this app a long time ago when it was free and not a lot of people knew about it. It was a great app fundamentals helped me understand my habits and help…
No flexibility in changing medication — I had filled out my intake paperwork listing Ozempic as a med that I could not take. That is still what I was subscribed. Even though I caught it in a matter of minutes, they wouldn't cancel it so I…
Over Priced and Hard to cancel — When I was using the app years ago it was about a full stomach even with high sugar foods like grapes. May work for some that can tolérate a high glycemic index. Very hard to cancel on an Apple phone and e…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Deceptive Advertising — Noom advertises GLP-1s at $150 per month but doesn’t let you know until you’ve already paid and the prescription is sent that you have to fork over an additional $100 per month for their subscription service. The…
Don’t do their glp 1 bait and switch — I signed up for their glp 1 program it stayed after 150 a month trial it would be 250 for 3 months of medication and clarified as well and then when I check what my charge is going to be I see 747…
What? — Complete garbage. I’ve been hunting for a comparable app to replace MFP, this came up as a top-rated calorie tracking app. Except you can’t track calories, only greens. At least for free. Apparently you can only track with the…
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.