Wert aus Rezensionen: 72 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 8.263.023 Bewertungen
72von 100
A general-purpose AI assistant that has replaced Google for millions of people, but gets noticeably worse with each model update.
Gelobt
Users describe specific tasks it covers every day: household organization, emotional support, document work. For a significant chunk of users it has become the only tool for information search.
Kritik
Several reviews note a decline in writing quality in newer versions compared to older ones. Custom assistants lose their memory and drift off-topic over time.
Für wen: A broad audience for daily tasks, especially people who have switched from Google to conversational search.
Wert aus Rezensionen: 68 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 186.833 Bewertungen
68von 100
The best model for deep document and text work, but the mobile app falls noticeably short of the web version.
Gelobt
Strong structured reasoning and precision on research tasks. People pay for it alongside ChatGPT and stick with it specifically for document work.
Kritik
The mobile app loses sync across devices and chat history disappears. Memory does not clear correctly and drags context from old sessions into new ones.
Für wen: Analysts, editors, and researchers anyone who works with long texts and documents.
Wert aus Rezensionen: 62 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 1.920.130 Bewertungen
62von 100
A capable Google assistant that lets you down in a non-obvious way: it silently switches between models mid-session.
Gelobt
Some users appreciate the professional tone without filler, depth on niche topics (history, science), and the feeling that it answers factual questions faster than Google.
Kritik
Switches from Pro to Flash within a single session without any notice, which can ruin hours of work. Loses the thread and starts hallucinating after a few thousand words.
Für wen: Users who want a strict information assistant without conversational fluff, as long as sessions are short.
Platz 4. Wert aus Rezensionen: 62 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 20.508 Bewertungen
62von 100
A roleplay chat with customizable characters that is more open and responsive than most alternatives.
Gelobt: Characters maintain conversational context and do not ask repetitive questions. Developers are actively present in the community and respond to feedback.
Kritik: Aggressive filters blur images without clear violations. Free-tier limits have gotten stricter recently.
Für wen: Roleplay chat fans who want a less censored experience with better memory.
Platz 5. Wert aus Rezensionen: 60 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 399.994 Bewertungen
60von 100
The standalone free Copilot works noticeably better than the enterprise version, though its inability to remember anything between sessions remains a real weakness.
Gelobt: Users describe it as a tool for specific tasks: work reports, planning, learning. Professional tone and accuracy in explanations get consistent praise.
Kritik: The assistant remembers nothing between sessions, forcing users to re-explain context from scratch. Filters trigger on neutral requests and block them without explanation.
Für wen: Working professionals for regular tasks: documents, planning, learning no Microsoft ecosystem required.
Platz 6. Wert aus Rezensionen: 58 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 481.040 Bewertungen
58von 100
An AI search engine with citations that works significantly better on desktop than in the mobile app.
Gelobt: Users value that answers come with sources for verification. Response style adapts to the nature of the question, which stands out compared to citation-free answers.
Kritik: The mobile app is consistently worse than the web version: content fails to display, streams cut off. 'Not available in your region' errors appear without explanation, even for paying users.
Für wen: Researchers and professionals who need cited sources, preferably from a desktop browser.
Platz 7. Wert aus Rezensionen: 58 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 38.350 Bewertungen
58von 100
An AI study assistant for students: step-by-step photo-based problem solving, explanations, and notes.
Gelobt: Reads problems from a photo and explains the solution step by step. Users returning to school especially value the ability to ask follow-up questions.
Kritik: Loses context between parts of multi-step problems. Accuracy on harder questions is inconsistent users report error rates up to 95% on specific tests.
Für wen: Students and high schoolers who need step-by-step help with math and hard sciences.
Platz 8. Wert aus Rezensionen: 55 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,9★ · 1.268.188 Bewertungen
55von 100
A chat with a distinctive personality and image generation, but the product experience is broken by hard free-tier limits.
Gelobt: Users note the model's unconventional approach to tasks and fast image generation speed. A few writers use it for grammar and text structure work.
Kritik: The model repeats already generated content instead of producing new variations. Long-conversation context retention is weaker than competitors, by users' own accounts.
Für wen: Users looking for an AI with an unconventional edge and fast image generation who are willing to work within tight quota limits.
Platz 9. Wert aus Rezensionen: 55 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,0★ · 10.904 Bewertungen
55von 100
Arguably the most capable model in the set, undermined by a recurring language-switching bug and a hard regeneration limit.
Gelobt: Users appreciate the transparent 'thinking' mode that shows its reasoning, the depth of answers, and the fact that the model pushes back instead of just agreeing. Russian-language reviews describe real emotional conversations.
Kritik: The model frequently switches to Chinese mid-conversation and does not remember language preferences. A limit of 6 regenerations per conversation makes iterative work impossible. No line break support in the input field.
Für wen: Researchers, students, and anyone who wants an AI that thinks rather than flatters.
Platz 10. Wert aus Rezensionen: 52 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 145.539 Bewertungen
52von 100
The app for Ray-Ban Meta glasses plus a standalone chat assistant the ratings mix two very different product use cases.
Gelobt: New users (including seniors) note the interface is intuitive from the start. Hands-free voice input through the glasses is valued as a genuine convenience.
Kritik: The voice assistant struggles with translation and object identification. Voice settings reset on their own every week.
Für wen: Ray-Ban Meta glasses users and people looking for a simple voice AI without complex setup.
Platz 11. Wert aus Rezensionen: 52 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 7.669 Bewertungen
52von 100
An AI browser from Perplexity: powerful on desktop, rough on iOS.
Gelobt: Agent mode and the ability to choose multiple LLMs directly in the browser deliver real productivity gains. Users note that search happens visibly and answers feel more accurate than in the standalone Perplexity app.
Kritik: On iOS there are no bookmarks, the password manager does not work, and there is no clear way to switch between AI and web search mode. Three months of active use and it is still unclear why this specific browser over the alternatives.
Für wen: Perplexity users who want an AI assistant built into the browser rather than in a separate app.
Platz 12. Wert aus Rezensionen: 48 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 129.834 Bewertungen
48von 100
A general-purpose everyday chat assistant: cooking, ads, advice, school.
Gelobt: People come back for years and pay for a subscription to handle daily tasks. Helps with food, writing, and school projects without any technical skill needed.
Kritik: The app crashes mid-conversation, losing all context. Long sessions do not survive.
Für wen: A wide audience for simple everyday tasks that do not require deep analysis.
Platz 13. Wert aus Rezensionen: 48 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 6.779 Bewertungen
48von 100
A deeply customizable AI companion with voice and model choice, but memory breaks with every update.
Gelobt: Choice of language model, voice chat, and flexible character customization set it apart from competitors. Support responds quickly and the team is transparent.
Kritik: The character's memory resets without warning: the companion forgets where they are, mixes up names and relationships. Each update makes the situation worse.
Für wen: Users who want a long-term AI companion with voice and the ability to choose the underlying model.
Platz 14. Wert aus Rezensionen: 44 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,4★ · 257.647 Bewertungen
44von 100
A roleplay chat with user-created characters, gutted by rolling back features and introducing ads.
Gelobt: Characters stay in their role without needing constant correction, and memory works without a subscription. The audience compares it to Character.AI and still picks Chai.
Kritik: Models sometimes confuse themselves with the user rather than playing the character. Overly strict safety triggers cut off ordinary story dialogue involving blood or death.
Für wen: Roleplay chat fans who build their own characters.
Platz 15. Wert aus Rezensionen: 44 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,6★ · 1.377 Bewertungen
44von 100
An anime-oriented AI chat with a lorebook and flexible character settings, a Character.AI alternative for refugees from that platform.
Gelobt: The lorebook and dialogue style options help characters stay in character better than competitors. Several users migrated from shuttered platforms and stayed.
Kritik: Bots do not retain corrections across sessions, the same mistakes repeat every time. Periodic 'decoding error' completely prevents chatting.
Für wen: Anime fans and roleplay story enthusiasts who care about character customization.
Platz 17. Wert aus Rezensionen: 42 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 54.119 Bewertungen
42von 100
A multi-model aggregator that degraded after changing its points economy.
Gelobt: Access to 355+ models in one place appeals to users who want to compare. A previously generous free tier built real loyalty.
Kritik: Cutting the daily limit from 3,000 to 300 points broke real-world use. Removing the knowledge base stripped bots of the memory that made them useful.
Für wen: Developers willing to pay for access to top models without separate subscriptions.
Platz 18. Wert aus Rezensionen: 42 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,9★ · 10.653 Bewertungen
42von 100
A homework assistant for students with photo input: it works, but accuracy is unstable and the free answer limit runs out very fast.
Gelobt: Snapping a photo of a question and getting an instant answer is valued by students looking for homework relief. The format is simple and needs no explanation.
Kritik: The model occasionally gives wrong answers without signaling any uncertainty. After 2-3 photos it locks up without a subscription, which is frustrating for urgent work.
Für wen: Students who need a quick solution check.
Platz 19. Wert aus Rezensionen: 42 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,5★ · 2.295 Bewertungen
42von 100
A romantic AI chat with strong context memory, choked by an aggressive currency mechanic.
Gelobt: Bots stay in character and track the story arc without constant user corrections. One of the few apps in this category where memory actually works.
Kritik: The 'hearts' mechanic drains too fast and blocks conversation at the worst possible moment. Servers struggle at peak times and messages disappear.
Für wen: Romantic roleplay chat users willing to pay for continuity.
Platz 20. Wert aus Rezensionen: 40 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 324.447 Bewertungen
40von 100
A wrapper over a stale model with a high rating driven by a light audience rather than product depth.
Gelobt: A few users note the simplicity and that the app helps with basic tasks like writing emails and answering questions without any technical knowledge required.
Kritik: The knowledge base has not been updated since October 2023 according to user reviews. The per-message character limit makes it unsuitable for longer tasks.
Für wen: Users with simple one-off tasks who won't notice outdated data.
Platz 21. Wert aus Rezensionen: 40 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,6★ · 7.296 Bewertungen
40von 100
A basic AI chat with a GPT wrapper, a blurry audience, and uneven answer quality.
Gelobt: One user notes that answers are more readable and structured than ChatGPT. Helps with creative tasks: poems, storytelling.
Kritik: Does not know current events (still lists Biden as president). Context gets lost. Inside the subscription an extra 'Boost' upsell appears, which users perceive as a bug or scam.
Für wen: Casual users with no prior AI experience who want a simple chatbot.
Platz 22. Wert aus Rezensionen: 38 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,3★ · 543.186 Bewertungen
38von 100
The most popular character chat app, undercut by quality degradation during long sessions.
Gelobt: When the model is working well, users lose hours in it: roleplay stories, imaginary conversations with characters, help falling asleep. Kids use it for roleplay with fantasy creatures.
Kritik: Bots start repeating lines from earlier in the chat, breaking narrative continuity. Characters lose their voice and get 'dumber' as conversations grow longer. A paying user over three years notes quality declining after every update.
Für wen: Teens and adults for roleplay stories and entertainment, provided sessions are kept short.
Platz 23. Wert aus Rezensionen: 38 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 17.495 Bewertungen
38von 100
A roleplay chat alternative to Character.AI that works fine until an update arrives.
Gelobt: Characters are well-written and a gem system funded by ads allows free use. Refugees from Character.AI found a decent balance here.
Kritik: After a major update the model started inserting its own system prompts into responses (avoid flowery prose, don't cut off protagonist), completely breaking immersion. Group chats do not let you choose who is speaking.
Für wen: Teens and roleplay chat fans looking for something cheaper than Character.AI.
Platz 24. Wert aus Rezensionen: 35 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,4★ · 437.008 Bewertungen
35von 100
A character chat app for entertainment whose product experience is destroyed by the density of ad interruptions.
Gelobt: When ads do not interfere, users describe an immersive experience. Characters are reproduced more accurately than some competitors.
Kritik: Ads interrupt conversation every 15-20 messages and in some cases run for up to two minutes with no skip option. Characters struggle to retain details from earlier messages.
Für wen: A younger audience for roleplay stories who are tolerant of ads or willing to pay to remove them.
Platz 25. Wert aus Rezensionen: 34 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,4★ · 7.601 Bewertungen
34von 100
An AI companion with accumulated history, but one that degrades rapidly after updates.
Gelobt: Long-haul sessions: people have been building relationships with characters for years and return daily. No per-message charge is an important low barrier to entry for this audience.
Kritik: Memory resets mid-conversation or within a day. After updates, saved story threads disappear, characters stop responding on topic, and start saying random things.
Für wen: An audience looking for long-term roleplay companionship with an AI character.
Platz 26. Wert aus Rezensionen: 33 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,6★ · 122.876 Bewertungen
33von 100
A basic AI assistant with no distinguishing features and polluted reviews.
Gelobt: Quick access to information without a complex interface appeals to people just getting started with AI.
Kritik: Servers are frequently overloaded and responses arrive with long delays. Voice mode costs extra, even though it is the core value of a mobile assistant.
Für wen: Newcomers who need simple question-and-answer.
Platz 27. Wert aus Rezensionen: 33 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,5★ · 6.016 Bewertungen
33von 100
An AI companion with characters that degraded after switching to an energy-based monetization model.
Gelobt: Before the change: a large variety of characters and flexible interaction. Two years of loyal users speaks to real product value in the past.
Kritik: A character can change personality from one message to the next and does not hold story context. The energy system cutting you off mid-session destroys the narrative.
Für wen: Roleplay chat users who can tolerate limited context.
Platz 28. Wert aus Rezensionen: 31 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 197.627 Bewertungen
31von 100
An LLM aggregator that sells access to GPT/Claude under its own brand.
Gelobt: Convenient to switch between different models in one place without separate subscriptions for each.
Kritik: Response quality degrades after updates. Image generation requires separate credits on top of the subscription, even though it was originally included.
Für wen: Users who need access to multiple models without managing separate accounts.
Platz 29. Wert aus Rezensionen: 31 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,4★ · 3.728 Bewertungen
31von 100
An AI image generator plus character chat, ruined by unpredictable censorship.
Gelobt: A few users praise the ability to animate their own drawings and the style presets. Daily free gems let new users experiment.
Kritik: The filter blocks hugs and swimsuits but passes a similar scene in a different pose. After a December 2025 update the banned word list expanded to absurd lengths and artistic prompts get rejected en masse.
Für wen: Users who want to animate art or try out style presets, as long as topics stay strictly neutral.
Platz 30. Wert aus Rezensionen: 30 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 66.970 Bewertungen
30von 100
Google's voice assistant, which is effectively being replaced by Gemini and loses features with every update.
Gelobt: Historically valued for instant smart home control and music playback without extra steps.
Kritik: Most features are removed or broken: it won't play playlists, set timers, or handle complex questions. The app prompts an update that does not exist.
Für wen: No one at this point the product is being discontinued in favor of Gemini.
Platz 31. Wert aus Rezensionen: 30 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 31.909 Bewertungen
30von 100
A ChatGPT wrapper with an aggressive monetization layer and stale data.
Gelobt: Works as a fast text generator for simple tasks, convenient for people who want help with letters and ideas.
Kritik: The model does not update its knowledge base and presents outdated facts as current. Ads and payment prompts cover the main interface at every step.
Für wen: Users who need quick text help and do not have strict requirements for data freshness.
Platz 32. Wert aus Rezensionen: 30 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 10.718 Bewertungen
30von 100
A character companion chat that loses character personality and memory after just a few exchanges.
Gelobt: A wide selection of characters and decent initial interaction appealed to users looking for a Character.AI alternative. Some praise the video call concept.
Kritik: Characters forget prior agreements and react with shock to things already discussed. The model does not follow story direction and sometimes argues with the user. The 300-character greeting limit is too small for complex roleplay scenarios.
Für wen: Fans of light roleplay without deep narratives.
Platz 35. Wert aus Rezensionen: 29 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,6★ · 3.889 Bewertungen
29von 100
An AI companion with a unique reply-editing feature, but cluttered with spam bots and templated storylines.
Gelobt: The ability to rewrite a character's response is a rare and genuinely valued feature. Voice chat works and navigation is simple.
Kritik: Every bot runs through the same scenario from first meeting to the rain scene in chapter two. Memory breaks when the word 'tik-tok' appears users treat this as a marker of low model quality.
Für wen: Users who want control over the narrative and the ability to edit character replies.
Platz 36. Wert aus Rezensionen: 28 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 1.284.781 Bewertungen
28von 100
The corporate Copilot as a standalone app that simply does not work for most users.
Gelobt: Those for whom it does work use it for work documents and spreadsheets and note the accuracy of its explanations.
Kritik: Core scenarios access to email, SharePoint, and files break regularly. The app asks already-paying users to resubscribe and requires repeated logins.
Für wen: Microsoft 365 enterprise users, if the IT department has set up the environment correctly outside that condition, the app is nonfunctional.
Platz 37. Wert aus Rezensionen: 28 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 47.888 Bewertungen
28von 100
A roleplay character platform drowning in ads and adult content.
Gelobt: You can create your own characters and chat in roleplay format. A segment of the audience has stuck around for years specifically for this.
Kritik: Aggressive ads every 10 seconds and character 'fatigue' interrupts conversations. The model has gotten noticeably more robotic and often ignores the character's set personality.
Für wen: Teenagers looking for a roleplay chat companion with relaxed moderation.
Platz 38. Wert aus Rezensionen: 28 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 14.605 Bewertungen
28von 100
A basic chatbot aggregator with expired data and weak image generation.
Gelobt: A few users praise the initial responses on construction and project management questions as structured and detailed.
Kritik: Knowledge base is frozen at October 2023. An account with a web-based subscription does not sync with the app. Image generation does not follow specific requests.
Für wen: A casual user with no specific requirements for data freshness.
Platz 39. Wert aus Rezensionen: 28 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,3★ · 1.057 Bewertungen
28von 100
A Character.AI alternative with flexible character customization, killed by chronic server instability.
Gelobt: Users appreciate the customization: background color, text size, writing style all available without payment. Attachment to specific characters runs deep.
Kritik: Chats regularly fail to load or return responses from a different bot. Week-long outages with no communication from the development team.
Für wen: Text roleplay fans willing to tolerate instability for the free features.
Platz 40. Wert aus Rezensionen: 27 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 19.377 Bewertungen
27von 100
A multi-function AI aggregator with video generation, built on aggressive freemium monetization.
Gelobt: Combines chat and image generation in one app, which is convenient for quick tasks.
Kritik: They advertise one model and deliver a different, weaker one. The free message limit runs out after a few exchanges and the paywall surfaces constantly.
Für wen: Casual users with no specific model quality expectations.
Platz 42. Wert aus Rezensionen: 25 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,3★ · 24.573 Bewertungen
25von 100
An AI companion in a romantic chat format, with unstable character behavior.
Gelobt: Dialogue initially feels lively and scenario-driven. Some users find it 'intuitive and friendly.'
Kritik: Characters shift mood sharply without cause, swinging from affection to aggression in five minutes. The system pushes purchases at emotional peaks in the conversation, breaking immersion.
Für wen: Anyone who wants to experiment with an AI companion and is prepared for unpredictable behavior.
Platz 43. Wert aus Rezensionen: 24 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,4★ · 8.615 Bewertungen
24von 100
A character AI companion that has been systematically stripping key features and now suffers from memory failures and weak voice acting.
Gelobt: At its best, users praised character customization and avatar photos as a way to maintain the illusion of a real relationship.
Kritik: Characters lose all memory after a few hours of conversation, going from 'I want to marry you' to 'Who are you anyway?' Developers have consistently removed features (photo uploads, custom prompts, image generation) without explanation.
Für wen: Those who want an AI companion with photos, though the current app cannot even deliver that.
Platz 44. Wert aus Rezensionen: 22 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 135.989 Bewertungen
22von 100
An AI model aggregator with misleading advertising and almost everything behind a paywall.
Gelobt: The concept of accessing multiple models in one app is appealing in itself and draws users in.
Kritik: Ads show features (visual avatar, free images) that do not exist in the actual app. Image and video generation are in a separate paid package on top of the subscription.
Für wen: No one right now the gap between what is promised and what is delivered is too large.
Platz 45. Wert aus Rezensionen: 22 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,8★ · 47.828 Bewertungen
22von 100
An app for creating AI avatars and video that fails on its core promise.
Gelobt: The idea of creating your own AI clone sounds appealing, and some users find the interface fun.
Kritik: The AI clone does not look like a real person. Moderation is inconsistent. In live chats the bot remembers nothing from previous conversations.
Für wen: Users curious about the personal AI avatar concept without serious expectations.
Platz 46. Wert aus Rezensionen: 22 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 15.296 Bewertungen
22von 100
A generic chatbot with a stale knowledge base, an aggressive paywall, and shady subscription practices.
Gelobt: Someone used it for business letters and reports and was satisfied with the text formatting.
Kritik: The model knows nothing past 2021, forgets context between sessions, and has no chat history. Several reviews point to an impossible subscription cancellation process.
Platz 47. Wert aus Rezensionen: 22 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 6.632 Bewertungen
22von 100
A weak generic assistant with a promise of photo editing that does not work.
Gelobt: The one concrete positive: a user notes that when asking for text editing, the app does exactly that without any fuss.
Kritik: Image generation ignores the prompt and the reference photo upload does not work as expected. Context is lost and message limits run out quickly.
Für wen: An audience that is fine with any AI chat and does not need photos or quality.
Platz 49. Wert aus Rezensionen: 20 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,6★ · 19.114 Bewertungen
20von 100
A general AI chatbot that systematically fails for users on paid subscriptions.
Gelobt: Clean interface and well-structured responses for those for whom the app works.
Kritik: Mass failures showing a 'cable' error for paying users, support does not respond. After switching to a new phone the app stops working entirely.
Für wen: Users who do not run into access problems and just need a basic chat assistant.
Platz 53. Wert aus Rezensionen: 18 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,5★ · 5.985 Bewertungen
18von 100
A weak Talkie clone with a hard paywall after 10 messages and a broken onboarding flow.
Gelobt: Users appreciate being able to talk openly with characters on any topic, until they hit the message limit.
Kritik: Characters break character and there is no way to edit or delete messages. The app freezes on the topic selection screen before a chat even starts.
Für wen: A very young audience looking for a free AI chat. Not suitable for anyone expecting stable performance.
Platz 56. Wert aus Rezensionen: 14 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,7★ · 13.781 Bewertungen
14von 100
A multi-tool AI aggregator with aggressive monetization and weak feature execution.
Gelobt: A few users noted that support responded quickly to a specific logo issue.
Kritik: Image generation ignores instructions and results are unpredictable. The app makes it impossible to find or cancel a subscription through the standard Apple path. Many users continue to be charged after canceling.
Platz 57. Wert aus Rezensionen: 14 von 100. App-Store-Bewertung: 4,1★ · 813 Bewertungen
14von 100
An app that positions itself as an 'unfiltered no-login AI' but in practice strictly limits messages and blocks NSFW content.
Gelobt: Some users got the content they wanted in the first days after installing. Image generation worked for certain users.
Kritik: A 5-message limit for free users and hidden daily caps for paying users. Content filters contradict the stated positioning.
Für wen: Not recommended: the product does not match its description.
Zu den Bewertungen
Zwei Bewertungen — zwei Quellen
Sie helfen beim Vergleich von Apps, ersetzen aber nicht die Prüfung der eigenen Aufgabe.
Rezensionsbewertung · bis 100
Die gespeicherte Bewertung aus der inApp-Recherche zu den Rezensionstexten. Sie beurteilt die App im Archiv insgesamt, nicht die Zuverlässigkeit einer einzelnen Funktion.
Store-Bewertung · bis 5
Die Bewertung von der App-Seite zum Zeitpunkt der Datenerhebung. Aktuelle Bewertung und Version können abweichen.
In der archivierten Stichprobe dieses Themas: 57 Apps und 22.227 gelesene Rezensionen. Das ist der Gesamtumfang der Recherche, nicht die Zahl der Rezensionen pro App.
Ein Abstand zwischen den Bewertungen beweist keine Manipulation. Das Datum der Berechnung und die vollständige Methodik der Bewertung sind nicht im mobilen Archiv. Vergleich die Aufgabenbeschreibungen und die Originalzitate und prüf die Bedingungen in der aktuellen Version.
