What’s the catch? Paywall blocks the basics — reported by 72 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 6.6.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.6.2, updated 2026-10-02.
What the analysis found
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.
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.
Paywall blocks the basics
1 star — You have to pay for everything.
Got worse — I’ve used the free version for years, rly helps with little babies. They just changed it and put 95% of the info /pictures behind a paywall. Really sucks but at least other sites are free.
Login required - why? — 1. The app first asks users if it’s a “five star experience.” if yes, it directs them to give a review here on the App Store. If not, it directs them to a website to write feedback privately. This warps ratings. 2…
Price keeps rising
Price — I love having access to the data base of foods and how to prepare them through different stages. I would love to have the subscription for the meal ideas but I just can’t get behind the price. The premium subscription cost $10…
Loved At First — Love the database on how to prepare foods I paid to use the app years ago to track what my first ate. I wanted to do the same with my second, but see the price has increased tremendously. I don’t want all of those extras…
Too expensive now — The basic database is still there for free, you just have to back out of any subscription agreement, so I think it is an ok app. I used this app for my 2022 baby, the price increase is crazy, reminds me that they put…
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
Paid for app, but keeps asking for subscription — Constantly getting signed out, only to be asked to create new account - so losing all saved foods. I paid for the annual subscription, but keeps asking me to pay to subscribe and locked…
Constant upgrade nags high price — There is a price, probably half of what they charge, where this becomes a no brain purchase. But $100 for information freely available anywhere else is too high and the constant nags to upgrade make an…
can find/log this info elsewhere — this app looked really exciting but it’s very annoying that everythingggg i click prompts me to pay for their subscription so there’s literally no use to the app. not everyone wants a million…
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.