What’s the catch? Multiple ad networks bundled — measured, backed by SDKs in the app package.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 13.3.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 13.3.1, updated 2026-10-01.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 13.3.0, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 13.3.1 · 2026-10-01
– You can now give Premium as a gift! A whole year of access for someone you care about. You can attach a message with a few warm words. Cycle stats, insights, health reports, and not a single ad. Everything it takes to feel looked after, wrapped up in one gift. – App performance has been improved. – Fixed minor issues reported by users. – Please send us your feedback!
Google Play
This analysis describes version 13.2.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 13.2.0, updated 2026-09-30.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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
I've been using this app for 6 years now and loved it but it has so many ads built in now that it is not enjoyable and I must look for an other app...
this has way to many ads. and looses my data constantly. for someone who is irregular it's scary because you can't find when your last period was and if you can find it you have to go through 5 ads to get to it.
The extremely intrusive full screen ads are getting ridiculous and I'm considering uninstalling.
Users describe the free version as usable
it's a really nice app. It lets you track your mood and different symptoms. It also lets you know when you should start your ovulation period. I'm not sure what is available if you pay for more features. But you really don't have to pay…
Review — I love this app it’s super helpful I just wish we didn’t have to pay to get certain information or features!
This app is so good and must download it! — Okay so quick story.... I got my period last year so I was 10 and I just used some random period track apps and gurl... They rather sign me out or I have to pay the subscription. But this one…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.