DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Samsung Health
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. · Health & Fitness

What’s the catch? Tracking and data collection concerns — 2 independent sources agree, backed by user reviews and the app manifest.

Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.

1 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: Medium6 signal sources1,096 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 7.00.6.011 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 VARY, updated 2026-09-07.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

The catch list 1

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.

Tracking and data collection concerns
2 independent sources agreefrom user reviews and the app manifestartefact e58c39dcdf48…
The app ships session-recording or a wide tracking stack, holds permissions that read personal data, or is reported by users to sell, leak or over-collect it. The evidence line says which of those was observed.
What we saw: The app requests QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES, which lets the app enumerate every other app installed on the device.

Context 1

Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.

Asks for more sensitive permissions than similar apps
MeasuredPublished as context — deliberately not a charge · from the app manifestartefact e58c39dcdf48…
The package requests substantially more of the device's sensitive permissions than the typical app in its category. This is a measurement, not an accusation: a permission is granted because a feature needs it, and a wide request list is a reason to look rather than a finding on its own.
What we saw: Requests 12 sensitive permissions (ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION, ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, ACTIVITY_RECOGNITION, BODY_SENSORS, CAMERA, READ_CONTACTS, READ_EXTERNAL_STORAGE, READ_MEDIA_IMAGES, READ_PHONE_NUMBERS, READ_PHONE_STATE, RECORD_AUDIO, SYSTE…

One source only — shown, not confirmed 1

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.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Aggressive ad load: raised by 7 distinct reviewers (0.6% of 1096 reviews scanned)

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

The primary reason I tried this app was to track my as needed migraine medication. I tried to go back two days to track that I had taken a migraine pill on Saturday. I couldn't select the date no matter what way I tried to do so. Instead…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-29

tooooo many adds

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-29

The app is good after the update, but the hell you are bombarding with ads ? What's the point in the discover section ? Also there's promotions and notices just to push ads, having a galaxy watch and seeing these ads is disgusting. How…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-28

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: 7.00.6.0116 independent signals1,096 reviews scannedConfidence: MediumNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: 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.