We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 17.38.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 17.38.0, updated 2026-10-05.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 6
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
There’s too many ads — Every three profiles there’s ads and $10 a week for a subscription is too expensive. No one wants to pay $50 a month for a dating app.
Tracking and data collection concerns
Basic App with ridiculous prices — I have no clue how they justify $40 a month. Not sure how it is on the straight side but for the gays, people match and then don’t respond or chat. Just match collectors. Not to mention the scammers and…
NOPE📞 — Zero chance I’m giving an app my phone number. People need to stop accepting this as normal. It is not secure - it’s insecure and a privacy nightmare. This practice needs to be erased from existence.
SPAM AND SCAMS — Half the profiles are just random pictures of landscapes and not people, very few are actually real people. The rest are AI generated or people who haven’t logged in in years. Then randomly “people” from other countries…
Hard to cancel
App doesn’t work can’t cancel subscription. — I paid to see my likes and it still wants more money. They are smart and take you off the apple ecosystem to pay to make it near impossible to cancel your subscription.
Pay to progress
Pay to win — Been on this app for 3 months, was on it a few years ago, got plenty of matchs back then, now feels like I have to pay if I want even the slightest chance of a match……
Terrible — This stupid pay to win application already just wants your money and sends bots your way anyway but my account was banned all of a sudden?? And it was automated I didn’t even remember having an active account since March so…
Reports of unexpected charges
Pay Wall — This app is horrible. It places basic features of a dating app behind pay walls in order to try to scam you out of your money, and by having these pay walls, it makes the app 10x harder to use. It literally wants you to pay 20$…
BANNED AFTER SAYING I WANTED MARRIAGE: A MUSLIM CUSTOMER’S RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM AND HUMAN-RIGHTS — I joined Tinder looking for marriage. I stated openly that I am Muslim, live in Saudi Arabia, and that my religious understanding of marriage…
Their goal is to keep us on here, not match — I've never bothered to write a review for anything before. I plan to delete the app and go back to being old fashioned and trying to meet people in person, yet had to say my peace as this app…
Paywall blocks the basics
Charging for basic functionality — Having a limited number of likes behind a paywall is downright insulting. That is like if Instagram limited the amount of posts you can send. This app makes EA look generous.
Charge for any sort of use — This would be a great app if you didn’t have to pay to do anything at all pretty lame and too many bots I just rated well to leave a remark that may stick that speaks truth.
Free Version is Useless — I’ve never tried the paid version but this app does not work. I might get one match a month, haven’t gotten a like in weeks. My success rate in real life is 1000% better than this
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.