Diet App Scorecard April 2026: 10 Apps, 2,995 Reviews Analyzed

Sergey Oreshko - Co-founder and CEO of MyNetDiary

MyFitnessPal's redesign backlash deepened, and six of ten calorie tracking apps now show review patterns flagged for authenticity concerns. Plus: Cal AI is recommending daily targets as low as 200 calories. The April 2026 scorecard.

April 2026 Ratings at a Glance

As the CEO of MyNetDiary, I publish this scorecard with an obvious conflict: my company is part of the category being measured. That's why the methodology and the limits of the data matter. This scorecard is not an all-time ranking of calorie tracking apps. It's a monthly snapshot of what users wrote in April — what broke, what improved, and what they still trust enough to use every day.

Apps are selected from the US App Store top 100 Health & Fitness category as of April 30, 2026, and listed in download ranking order. Ratings are calculated from that month's written reviews only, after filtering duplicates and unrelated reviews. The App Store's all-time star rating, auto-generated Review Summary, and "Most Helpful" sorting can obscure what's happening right now. Six apps in this month's scorecard are flagged for authenticity concerns — see the methodology and the per-app sections below for what triggered each flag.

# = download ranking in top 100 Health & Fitness, April 30, 2026. Source: US App Store reviews. *Flagged: review patterns show signs consistent with rating inflation — clusters of brief, content-light five-star reviews paired with detailed, specific one-star reviews. See the per-app sections and the methodology here.

Scorecard Trends to Watch

Three months in, we can start telling one-month events from durable patterns. April had both.

MyFitnessPal's redesign backlash didn't stabilize — it deepened. After a 0.77-star drop from February to March, the natural assumption was that April would mark a floor. The opposite happened. The rating fell another 0.59 stars to 2.31, and review volume nearly doubled again from 752 to 1,438. Two months after launch, long-time users are still describing the same problems in new words: a food diary that requires extra taps to see the day at a glance, the loss of copy-between-days for individual foods, an AI Coach widely described as unwanted, and frequent crashes and login loops. Several reviewers said outright that they think MyFitnessPal is using paid reviews to mask the complaints — and as the next trend shows, the rating distribution lines up with that suspicion. The cumulative drop from February to April is now 1.36 stars on review volume that has grown 6×. I haven't seen a sustained reaction on this scale before in the category.

Review authenticity concerns went category-wide. In February, no apps were flagged for review authenticity concerns. In March, only BitePal was. In April, six of ten: Cal AI, MyFitnessPal, Municorn, BitePal, Simple, and Calo. The pattern is consistent across all six: clusters of brief, content-light five-star reviews ("Nice," "good," "Exquisite," "Great app") sit alongside detailed, specific one-star reviews documenting real product problems. Cal AI shows pre-use 5-stars whose body text reads "I want to wish it would work." Simple shows two completely different users posting word-for-word identical 100-character positive reviews — a near-impossibility in organic data — alongside 14 users submitting the same review repeatedly across the month. Calo's 98-review pool contains zero two-star and zero three-star ratings, which is statistically anomalous at that volume. Could any single one of these be coincidence? Maybe. All six apps showing similar patterns in the same month? I don't think so. But I can't prove it, and I'm not going to try.

I've been reading App Store reviews every morning since 2008. The pattern in this trend isn't new — I've watched at least three earlier generations of apps follow a similar arc. Heavy advertising pushes downloads. Suspicious five-star reviews drown out the complaints from people who actually try the product. And when the marketing eventually stops working, the apps fade. What's new in April 2026 is the scale: six apps in one month, all showing variations of the same review distribution simultaneously.

Cal AI's daily calorie recommendations got more dangerous between March and April. March reviews flagged targets of 470 to 670 calories per day — already low enough to raise medical concerns. April reviews flag a wider and more dangerous range: 200 to 1,100 calories per day. Two hundred calories is below basal metabolic rate for essentially any adult. Sustained intake at that level would be a medical emergency. And this isn't an AI hallucination on the calorie content of food — Cal AI is recommending some users eat 200 calories per day as their target. For an app currently ranked #5 in Health & Fitness downloads, with hundreds of thousands of users, this is a safety issue that deserves more attention than it's getting.

The most interesting small movement was Municorn, which rose from 2.31 in March to 3.02 in April. Reviews still flag the same problems — long onboarding leading to a forced paywall, denied refunds, AI inaccuracy — but the rating distribution now skews toward five-star ratings (about 35% of the pool) alongside the persistent one-stars. The bimodal split is sharp enough to flag for authenticity, but the underlying improvement may also be partly real. Worth watching whether May continues the trend or reverts.

The category contracted. March added three apps to the scorecard (Calo, FoodPilot, SnapCal). April lost two of them. FoodPilot exited with a March rating of 1.95 and complaints about unauthorized charges and AI scanning failures. SnapCal exited with 3.00 and reviews documenting calorie estimates 300 calories apart for the same meal. The market's verdict on at least one of those apps aligned with the reviews. Whether they re-enter in future months will depend on what the underlying products and the marketing do next.

If you want to see how these patterns developed, the February 2026 scorecard and March 2026 scorecard cover the earlier months.

What Users Said About Cal AI in April 2026

Average rating: 1.92 / 5 | Reviews analyzed: 208 | Filtered: 6 random/unrelated reviews | Chart position: #5

April reviews skewed heavily negative. The most pervasive theme was subscription and billing failures: many users reported annual subscriptions stopping after about a month, with the app showing "no subscription found" despite confirmed payment, while support cycled through escalations that never resolved. Cancellation friction, surprise charges after free trials, and broken family plan invites recurred frequently. App stability was the second major issue — crashes, freezing, login loops, broken add-food buttons, and a group function offline for weeks. AI photo recognition drew mixed feedback, with some users helped but many reporting inaccurate calorie estimates. Several reviewers flagged dangerously low calorie targets ranging from 200 to 1,100 per day. A small minority praised ease of use and weight-loss results.

Authenticity flag: The review pool shows signs of incentivized or solicited positives. Alongside the high volume of substantive, detailed 1-star complaints describing real product use, there is a cluster of very brief, generic five-star ratings — single-word entries like "Nice," "good," "Exquisite," and "Invigorating," plus contradictory pre-use 5-stars (e.g., a 5-star review whose body reads "I want to wish it would work"). The asymmetry between content-rich negatives and content-free positives is consistent with rating manipulation at the top of the distribution.

Why Cal AI's calorie recommendations are a safety issue

A few of the April Cal AI reviews describe the app recommending daily calorie targets of 200 to 1,100 calories. This isn't about a misidentified apple in a photo — these are the app's own daily targets shown to users who entered their stats. For context, basal metabolic rate (the calories your body burns at rest) ranges from roughly 1,200 to 1,800 per day for adults. A 200-calorie target sustained over time would constitute medical-grade caloric restriction. If you're using Cal AI and your daily target appears to be below 1,200 calories, treat that recommendation with extreme caution and consult a registered dietitian or your doctor before following it.

What Users Said About MyFitnessPal in April 2026

Average rating: 2.31 / 5 | Reviews analyzed: 1,438 | Filtered: 9 random/unrelated reviews | Chart position: #7

April reviews were overwhelmingly dominated by backlash against a late-April UI redesign, which surfaces in roughly 60% of reviews. Longtime users — many citing 5, 10, or 15+ years of daily use — called it the worst update they had ever experienced. The most frequent complaints: the food diary no longer shows the full day at a glance and requires extra taps into individual meals; copying items between days has been removed or restricted to copying entire meals; macro and calorie totals are harder to find; and a newly added AI Coach was widely described as unwanted and intrusive. Bugs were also reported — crashes, login loops, stuck loading screens, and meal-time misassignment. Many longtime premium subscribers stated they were canceling and seeking alternatives.

Authenticity flag: The pattern raises concerns. Five-star reviews skew heavily toward very brief, content-light praise ("Great," "Amazing," "Love it," "Perfect!," "10/10," "Love it.") — roughly 16% of all 5-star reviews are 30 characters or shorter — while the 1-star reviews are typically detailed and specifically reference the April 2026 redesign with named features. Several reviewers also said outright that they think MyFitnessPal is using paid reviews to offset the backlash. The asymmetry between content-rich, event-anchored negatives and content-free positives is consistent with rating inflation at the top of the distribution.

What Users Said About Cronometer in April 2026

Average rating: 4.06 / 5 | Reviews analyzed: 83 | Filtered: 0 random/unrelated reviews | Chart position: #11

April reviews skewed positive. The strongest praise focused on the depth of nutrient tracking, the comprehensiveness of the food database, and the unusually generous free version, which many reviewers said offered features they had paid for in other apps. Long-term users credited Cronometer with sustained weight loss, weight gain for athletes, and maintenance. Custom food creation, barcode scanning, photo entry, recipe handling, and responsive customer support were repeatedly cited as strengths. Negative reviews clustered around two issues: a recent bug late in April where food search stopped returning results for some users, leaving the app temporarily unusable, and complaints about intrusive ads in the free tier. A smaller group cited a learning curve, food database gaps for produce variety and prepared meals, and certain features behind the paywall.

Authenticity: The review patterns appear organic. Both positive and negative reviews are predominantly detailed and content-rich, with the 5-star ratings tied to specific use cases and outcomes rather than generic praise.

What Users Said About MyNetDiary in April 2026

Average rating: 4.54 / 5 | Reviews analyzed: 196 | Filtered: 2 random/unrelated reviews | Chart position: #22

April reviews skewed strongly positive. The most frequent praise centered on substantial weight loss outcomes, with reviewers citing losses ranging from roughly 12 pounds up to 130 pounds, and many citing years of consistent use. Reviewers repeatedly described the app as easy to use, customizable, and offering an unusually generous free tier, with the free barcode scanner and broad food database singled out as differentiators. The app was also valued for managing health conditions including diabetes, kidney stones, and A1C goals, and for nutrient and macro tracking. Negatives clustered around premium pricing perceived as expensive, the AI meal-photo feature being locked behind a paid tier, occasional reports of upgrade prompts persisting for paying users, and a smaller number of reports of settings being overridden or refund difficulties.

Authenticity: The review patterns appear organic. Most five-star reviews are detailed and content-rich, citing specific weight outcomes, named features, and multi-year usage; the negative reviews are similarly substantive and specific.

What Users Said About Municorn in April 2026

Average rating: 3.02 / 5 | Reviews analyzed: 65 | Filtered: 2 random/unrelated reviews | Chart position: #25

April reviews split sharply between strong praise and strong complaints. Negative reviews focused on subscription practices: long onboarding questionnaires of 15 to 45 minutes that lead to a forced paywall, free trials that charged users despite cancellation, and refund requests being denied. A second cluster of complaints centered on accuracy: the AI food recognition often failed to identify items or returned incorrect calorie and macro counts, and fiber and other macros were reported as missing or untracked. Recipe creation freezes and app-fit issues were also cited. Positive reviewers praised quick AI meal capture, ease of use, weight-loss results, and the home-screen widget, with several saying the app helped them stay accountable and consistent.

Authenticity flag: The rating distribution is sharply bimodal — roughly 35% one-star and 35% five-star, with only 6% three-star — and some five-star reviews are very brief and generic ("Great," "Great App," "La mejor app," "Muy buena app") while the one-star reviews tend to be detailed and specific. This asymmetry between content-rich negatives and content-light positives is consistent with possible review inflation at the top of the distribution, though the small total sample size (65 reviews) limits certainty.

What Users Said About BitePal in April 2026

Average rating: 2.07 / 5 | Reviews analyzed: 174 | Filtered: 12 random/unrelated reviews | Chart position: #32

April reviews skewed strongly negative. The dominant theme was subscription and billing practices: users reported being charged after they cancelled, hidden price increases beyond the rate they agreed to, and inability to cancel through the app alone since the website also had to be used. Customer support was repeatedly described as unresponsive or AI-only, with refund requests denied and disputes ultimately resolved through bank chargebacks. The second major cluster involved AI accuracy: photo and barcode scans frequently returned implausible calorie or macro counts that users said they had to correct manually, and several reviewers flagged missing fiber tracking and inability to edit logged meals. Positive reviewers praised the raccoon mascot, the cute aesthetic, gamified accountability, and ease of use, with some reporting weight-loss progress.

Authenticity flag: The review pool shows two patterns of concern. First, an unusually large cluster of pre-use ratings was filtered out, including multiple users who explicitly said they had not yet used the app but were already submitting ratings — suggesting the app may be soliciting reviews very early in onboarding before users have meaningful experience to evaluate. Second, after filtering, roughly a quarter of the remaining five-star reviews are brief and content-light alongside detailed, specific one-star reviews documenting billing problems, an asymmetry consistent with rating inflation at the top of the distribution.

What Users Said About Lose It! in April 2026

Average rating: 3.46 / 5 | Reviews analyzed: 143 | Filtered: 1 random/unrelated review | Chart position: #37

April reviews split between strong long-term loyalty and frustration with recent changes. Positive reviewers, many citing 5 to 15 years of consistent use, praised the app for substantial weight-loss outcomes (frequently in the 40 to 73 pound range), ease of use, the breadth of the food database, recipe creation, barcode scanning, and Apple Watch integration. Several welcomed a new AI logging feature and the redesigned dashboard. Negatives clustered around an April 2026 update that broke or relocated familiar features (custom workouts, themes, layout) and caused freezing for some users, and a steady migration of previously free features behind a subscription. Frequent in-app upgrade pop-ups, intrusive ads in the free tier, difficulty canceling subscriptions, and data-sharing concerns also recurred.

Authenticity: The review patterns appear organic, with both positive and negative reviews predominantly detailed and substantive — five-star ratings tied to specific use cases, weight outcomes, and named features, and one-star ratings tied to specific update changes, billing experiences, or paywalled features.

Ready to add AI
to your tracking?

Also available as www.plateai.com