We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2.27.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.27.1, updated 2026-09-29.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
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
This is different than five stars. I just wanted you to be able to see it. — Everything cost money who wants pay money to have a list on your phone I might as well go to Notes or have a reminder. I wish Apple made it out for request. I…
Love it, tiny problems — I love this app and the other apps these developers produce. It is simple, easy and helps me a ton. I have ADHD so it’s hard for me to remember certain things, but this app Helps a lot. My slight issue is that…
Best Task Tracker Thus Far — Honestly, I never write reviews, and much less on apps. But this to do list totally knocked me back. There are SO MANY features. And they’re not all locked behind a paywall. 🤯 that’s been a major pain point…
Users describe the free version as usable
Great To Do App — I’ve been going back and forth between different apps to get all of my tasks in one place and I keep coming back to MinimalList because it is so simple. I also like that it has a widget to add to my Home Screen. The free…
Great — They gave me so much for free
Hard for old eyes — I’m using the free version and find the font available is not enough contrast for ease of reading. I’ve heard folks say they have old eyes. This app is not easy for my old eyes.
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.