Dating · 100 apps · 47 280 avis lus
Les textes sur les apps sont en anglais.
Where the people on the other side are real and chats go somewhere, and where it is empty profiles and bots. Les meilleures notes d’après le texte des avis : My Love (82/100), Between, Couples Love Tracker (81) et Evergreen (79).
Le rang suit la note tirée du texte des avis (sur 100). ★ est la note de l’App Store. À propos des chiffres
A simple, accurate relationship counter that does exactly what it's designed for. Couples genuinely love it.
Points forts
The home-screen widget shows the counter in real time, and anniversary and special-date reminders fire reliably.
Reproches
The rating prompt pops up on every launch and covers the screen on special days, making it hard to take a screenshot.
Pour qui : Couples who want to track the history of their relationship.
A private space for two with a shared memory vault, used by couples for years, but a serious incident of irreversible loss of thousands of photos undermines trust.
Points forts
The feeling of a world that belongs only to the two of you, storing photos and messages in one place for years. Stickers and themes make conversations feel warmer.
Reproches
Several serious incidents where thousands of photos were permanently lost after crashes, with no recovery and no response from the company. New features appear very rarely.
Pour qui : Couples, especially long-distance ones, who want a personal digital space separate from regular messaging apps.
An app for couples rather than for finding a partner. Daily questions, quizzes, and mini-lessons help deepen a relationship. Especially valued in long-term and long-distance relationships. The main flaw is that content runs out faster than users expect.
Points forts
Daily questions open up topics the couple would never have raised on their own. Several users say a partner who used to avoid serious conversations started opening up through the app's game-like format.
Reproches
Questions start repeating after one or two months of active use. Accumulated points have nothing to spend them on, which is frustrating. There is no built-in chat for discussing answers.
Pour qui : Couples in long-term or long-distance relationships who want a structured way to talk about more than just how the day went.
A private couple space with a shared cat, a daily question, and a mood widget. Works as a ritual of presence in long-distance relationships.
Points forts : A daily question with the partner's answer visible, a mood widget on the lock screen, and joint care for a virtual cat as a simple shared ritual.
Reproches : After a few months things feel stagnant due to infrequent updates. The game selection does not expand, and the app is useless if one partner stops logging in.
Pour qui : Long-distance couples who need a daily connection ritual beyond texting.
A companion app for couples with daily questions and a shared virtual pet. Not about finding someone new but about staying connected with an existing partner. Users return for hundreds of days in a row, especially in long-distance relationships.
Points forts : A daily question whose answer stays hidden until the partner answers too, creating an honest mutual-disclosure mechanic. The Eggmon pet, cared for together, builds attachment to the app.
Reproches : After several months questions become repetitive or turn negative. Earning the in-app currency (pebbles) is too slow. The app does not work if the partner is gone. The account is not designed for solo use.
Pour qui : Couples, especially in long-distance relationships or at the early stages of getting to know each other, who want to maintain emotional closeness through structured dialogue.
Paired solves a real problem: keeping a living dialogue in a couple through daily questions and games. Users in multi-year relationships report gaining closeness. The weak point is too much sexual content and too few tools for handling conflict.
Points forts : Daily questions open up topics couples have avoided for years, especially valuable in long-distance relationships.
Reproches : A tilt toward sexual topics. If one partner stops participating the app becomes useless.
Pour qui : Couples who want to talk more deeply, especially in long-distance relationships or during a rut.
Daily themed questions spark conversations the couple would not normally get to, and this genuinely works as a tool for deepening dialogue.
Points forts : Daily questions organized by theme, a widget counting down to the next meeting, and the ability to see whether your answers matched your partner's.
Reproches : In the free version only one topic from each category is available, and some questions feel AI-generated rather than written by people.
Pour qui : Long-distance couples or those who want to structure communication and learn more about each other.
Structured exercises based on proven methods start conversations about painful topics and help couples make real progress.
Points forts : The exercises prompt conversation about painful topics without blame. Couples with very different histories report progress within the first sessions. One subscription works for both partners.
Reproches : Content is oriented toward heterosexual couples in crisis. LGBTQ users and couples without acute conflict feel the format is not for them.
Pour qui : Couples in crisis who want to work on their relationship without a third party, especially those who cannot afford regular therapy.
A relationship timer precise to the second, with password protection and date reminders. The widget freezes and shows outdated data.
Points forts : A counter with seconds and the ability to lock the app with a fingerprint, valued as a private space for the couple.
Reproches : The home-screen widget periodically freezes and shows the wrong date. Data is not restored after reinstalling without an account.
Pour qui : Couples who treasure their dates and want to see their relationship's length visually, especially those in long-distance relationships.
A niche platform for older women and younger men with video verification that genuinely reduces fakes, but the audience is small and geographically uneven.
Points forts : Profile verification through photos and videos is noticed by users as genuinely reducing the number of fakes. Older women comment on the maturity of the audience.
Reproches : The audience is very small and concentrated in a few regions. Profiles written in promotional language raise questions about authenticity.
Pour qui : Men attracted to older women and women 40+ looking for a younger partner, willing to accept a niche rather than mass audience.
SDC is the only app in this set where a meaningful share of users report real meetings and a live community. Strict verification is mentioned as a genuine barrier to bots. The platform serves a specific swinger and lifestyle community, and for that audience it performs noticeably better than its competitors. The design is dated and prices are high, but the core product is real people.
Points forts : Users point to verification that genuinely filters out bots, as well as links to offline events and clubs. Several people describe specific meetings and connections they built.
Reproches : The interface is archaic and full access is expensive. Feed content is unfiltered: strangers' birthdays and irrelevant posts clutter it.
Pour qui : Couples and singles familiar with the lifestyle community (swinging, open relationships), especially those who have already been to themed club nights. Not for those who are just exploring.
The only app with manual review of every profile before approval, which sharply reduces fakes. Real wedding stories appear more often than average.
Points forts : Manual profile checking cuts out most bots and scammers. You can see who showed interest without an extra fee. A small live team fixes errors on request.
Reproches : Very few users outside the US and large Christian communities. Waiting for profile approval can take days. Age filters work inconsistently.
Pour qui : Practicing Christians for whom shared faith is a non-negotiable condition for a relationship.
Basic messaging is available without a paid plan and video verification reduces the share of fakes, but most active profiles come from other countries with faked locations.
Points forts : Video and photo verification reduces the number of obvious fakes. You can communicate without an extra plan. The audience is diverse.
Reproches : Most active profiles are from distant countries with fake locations. Crypto-scheme scammers appear regularly. The same profiles keep cycling around.
Pour qui : Those willing to filter patiently and comfortable with international conversations. Not suitable for people who strictly want local matches.
An app built on Gary Chapman's five love languages: partners take a quiz, see each other's 'love tank' level, and receive tasks. A useful tool for intentional couples, but the interface needs work and some tasks feel generic.
Points forts : Real-time visualization of a partner's satisfaction level and targeted reminders about specific actions help couples where one or both forget to show love in the right way.
Reproches : The interface is unintuitive: you cannot create goals for your partner, notifications disappear, and completed tasks are not saved. The language of some questions is oriented toward religious and heterosexual couples, which puts off part of the audience.
Pour qui : Established couples who want to work on their relationship intentionally and understand the love language concept.
An honest casual-dating app with a small but relatively live audience. Fewer bots than competitors. users genuinely note this. The main weakness is the small reach in most cities, profiles run out quickly. Distance filters work poorly and the minimum search radius is too large. Real offline meetings do happen, which sets the app apart from most alternatives.
Points forts : Relatively fewer bots than on comparable apps. Users' direct intentions are clear from the first glance. Real meetings happen. several users confirm this.
Reproches : The audience runs out quickly in smaller cities. The minimum search radius is too large (60 miles). There is no activity indicator on profiles, so it is unclear who is actually online.
Pour qui : People in large cities looking for direct, low-commitment contact. In smaller towns the app is practically useless.
A young, active audience with interest tags and live streams, but most incoming friend requests are from bots, and finding a real conversation requires filtering.
Points forts : Interest tags genuinely help find people with shared hobbies. Live streams create a sense of presence. Real friendships form.
Reproches : Most incoming friend requests are from bots. Aggressive moderation bans users for harmless words in their bio. Live streaming features are unstable.
Pour qui : Ages 18 to 25 looking for friends or light social interaction, willing to pay.
An app with an unusual idea: matchmaking based on personality types. Real users appreciate the atmosphere. It feels less superficial than competitors, and people willing to talk by interest do turn up. The problem is scale: in most regions the audience is tiny, matches arrive from other countries rather than nearby, and bots from third countries appear. Actual dates are rare. The app works more as an online social space.
Points forts : The personality-type matching mechanic feels genuine. The atmosphere is kinder and more human than on Tinder or Hinge. The social tab with interest groups provides a place to talk beyond direct matching.
Reproches : A small live audience in most cities. Bots and accounts from distant countries clutter the feed. Real meetings almost never happen even after months of chatting.
Pour qui : Introverts and personality-type enthusiasts open to online friendship without rushing toward an offline date. A poor fit for anyone looking for a partner in a specific city.
Positioned as a space for women who love women, with manual moderation and an active support team. It genuinely works in large cities with an LGBTQ audience. The main problem is a significant number of scam profiles and men who pass verification.
Points forts : A live support team that responds in chat, not a bot. A user-friendly interface and the ability to report a profile directly from the card. Some users note higher-quality profiles compared to general apps.
Reproches : A significant share of profiles are scammers running bitcoin or military romance schemes. Men pass verification and stay in the feed. In smaller cities there are almost no active users.
Pour qui : Lesbian and bisexual women in large cities who value at least some moderation.
The best profile format among swipe apps, but mass arbitrary bans and a rough HingeX algorithm spoil the experience.
Points forts : Structured profiles with prompts make it easier to start a conversation. Real people do appear.
Reproches : Random permanent bans without explanation. Geolocation works inaccurately.
Pour qui : People looking for a relationship who are willing to invest time in their profile.
A unique concept for meeting people through shared activities and live events, which has degraded after a change of ownership toward aggressive monetization.
Points forts : Live meetups around shared interests produce organic connections that no swipe format can match. The range of groups and events is wide.
Reproches : Basic event search and the attendee list are locked behind a paid plan. Automated bans happen without human review. The interface became confusing after recent updates.
Pour qui : People who have moved to a new city or are looking for a community around shared interests rather than direct romance.
A niche dating app for plus-size people and those attracted to them. Real users note the absence of any audience in smaller cities, bots simulating interest immediately after sign-up, and aggressive messages from men. Some success stories look credible, but the audience is small.
Points forts : The niche focus reduces the feeling of being judged on appearance. Plus-size women say they feel desired without qualifications for the first time. Body-type and interest filters work.
Reproches : Live audience is thin: outside large cities finding a real nearby person is nearly impossible. Waves of 'likes' arrive from accounts that then go silent.
Pour qui : Plus-size women and men attracted to the BBW format who are willing to accept a small active base in exchange for a niche community.
A niche app for single members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with real success stories, but outside Utah the audience is very thin and the algorithm ignores the set radius.
Points forts : Shared values and level of church involvement are listed directly on the profile, shortening the path to compatible people.
Reproches : Outside Utah and large LDS communities the app is essentially empty. Inactive church members and people from other faiths appear in the feed.
Pour qui : Practicing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints living in areas with a dense Mormon community.
Feeld occupies a unique niche for polyamorous and kink-oriented people and still has no real alternative. The main problem is not audience quality but chronic technical instability: the app is considered genuinely buggy even by loyal users. Outside large cities the user base is nearly empty.
Points forts : An open and inclusive atmosphere where there is no need to explain a non-traditional lifestyle. The ability to create a joint profile with a partner attracts couples looking for a third or other partners. When people are present, their quality is noted as high.
Reproches : Chronic technical failures: messages disappear, notifications are phantom, accounts break without warning. The user base is small and inactive outside a few major cities. Moderation bans without explanation and with no appeal process.
Pour qui : Polyamorous couples and singles, as well as people with kink interests, who live in large cities and are willing to put up with unstable technical performance for lack of alternatives.
International search with country filters and a built-in translator works, and some users have found partners, but waves of off-target likes undermine trust.
Points forts : Country filters let users target people from specific regions with purpose. The built-in translator and time-zone display simplify communication across borders.
Reproches : Suspicious waves of thousands of likes from off-target regions. Profile visibility drops sharply after paying. Scammers use video calls for extortion.
Pour qui : People deliberately looking for a partner from a specific country and willing to carefully vet every contact.
Niche matching for the South Asian diaspora with real success stories, but the algorithm keeps showing profiles hundreds of miles away, archives conversations without warning, and fails to clean out scammers. The core of the product works. The wrapper does not.
Points forts : Several users found life partners here. Filters for culture, religion, diet, and family values make matches more meaningful than on universal apps.
Reproches : The algorithm cycles through the same profiles repeatedly without regard to distance. The archive feature kills live conversations. Fake profiles and scammers appear regularly, and moderation is slow to react.
Pour qui : Members of the South Asian diaspora who care about cultural and family compatibility and are willing to tolerate technical inconveniences.
An app for open relationships and threesomes with an interesting joint-profile mechanic for couples. In practice it suffers from a critically small audience outside large cities. Most profiles within a 100-km radius have been inactive for months. Single men massively create fake couple profiles. Safety for women raises serious concerns: complaints about aggressive behavior get no response from moderation.
Points forts : The joint couple profile mechanic is convenient. Group chats work. For those living in a large city and prepared for a long search, real meetings do occasionally happen.
Reproches : Dead audience in most regions. Single men pose as couples. Women's safety is not ensured by moderation. Verification does not protect against stolen photos.
Pour qui : Couples in large cities who are already familiar with this relationship format and prepared for a long search. Not suitable for singles or residents of smaller cities.
A large established gay user base with accessible features, but bots and scammers attack on every first contact and support does not respond.
Points forts : A large gay audience including in regions where niche apps are empty. Many features available without an extra plan.
Reproches : Bots and scammers redirect to Snapchat or Telegram on every first contact. Support does not respond to complaints. Trans women receive unjustified blocks.
Pour qui : Gay and bisexual men with experience on these platforms who can quickly spot scammers, especially in cities with a small audience for specialized apps.
Structured couple exercises with five-minute sessions genuinely help with difficult conversations. Better suited for couples in crisis than for those who are doing well.
Points forts : Several men report real progress working through the pelvic-floor exercise program and anxiety management. The 30-day structure gives a sense of a journey.
Reproches : Hidden auto-renewal without clear notification is the top complaint. Content repeats and is not personalized despite promises. Videos often fail to play.
Pour qui : Couples or men looking for basic exercises and relationship advice who read subscription terms carefully. Not for those expecting personalized or professional support.
OkCupid retains its extended profiles and compatibility questions, but has turned into a platform for foreign scammers. Most incoming likes come from the Philippines and Nigeria with faked locations. The algorithm has degraded since the Match Group acquisition.
Points forts : Detailed profiles and compatibility questions help those who seek them. Support for non-traditional relationship formats is present.
Reproches : Foreign profiles with faked locations flood the feed. Matches disappear and real local people are nearly absent.
Pour qui : Users in large cities who value profile depth and are willing to filter through a lot of noise.
Pure offers a direct approach to casual encounters without long conversations, and the idea resonates with the target audience. The real problem is that few people are around in most cities, and aggressive AI moderation bans real users as often as it bans rule-breakers. Those who do find a match often reach a real meeting.
Points forts : The directness of the format: a profile lives for 24 hours, which filters out passive users. Conversation quality is higher than on standard dating apps because both parties' intentions are clear upfront. Verification is present.
Reproches : The user base is small in many cities, making it hard to find someone nearby at the right moment. Moderation bans without warning or appeal, causing sharp frustration even among loyal paying users.
Pour qui : Adults looking for no-strings encounters in cities with sufficient user density. Not suitable for those who want to build up communication before meeting.
The flip mechanic is liked by those who have tried it, but active users are nearly absent outside a few cities.
Points forts : The full profile is visible before choosing, which appeals to people who want to know someone before deciding. The rare real matches lead to pleasant conversations.
Reproches : Catastrophically few active users outside a handful of cities. Escort accounts and dead profiles outnumber real users.
Pour qui : Residents of large US cities open to experimenting with a different dating format. Not suitable for small towns or regions with low user density.
A niche service for couples and singles looking for non-standard relationship formats. The concept attracts its audience, but real users are scarce: many profiles disappear within a day and people vanish after first contact. Real meetings are rare.
Points forts : A variety of relationship formats and an open, non-judgmental atmosphere. Some users note easy onboarding and quick initial matches after signing up.
Reproches : Few active users locally. Most profiles shown are from other states or countries. Fakes and bots are unfiltered and moderation does not function. Blocked profiles reappear.
Pour qui : Couples and singles open to non-standard relationship formats, primarily in large US cities.
HER solves a real problem: lesbian and queer women need a space without cis men, and HER was long the only option. But the platform is flooded with scam networks, bots, and men bypassing filters. Moderation cannot keep up with the flow of fakes, and bugs make daily use of the app unstable.
Points forts : A unique queer women's community where you can openly state identity and preferences. Some users find real relationships here precisely because the audience is targeted.
Pour qui : Lesbians, bisexual, and queer women who want a specialized platform and are prepared to carefully filter incoming contacts.
A niche service for couples and singles looking for swinging encounters. Dead audience in most cities. A real couple from Los Angeles reports no mutual matches after a month. No distance filter. Profiles with obvious signs of being fake use stolen photos. The app does not let you delete your account after signing up.
Points forts : The focus on swinging culture and threesomes meets a real demand from an audience that has nowhere to look on mainstream apps. Several couples describe real meetings.
Reproches : Dead audience in most cities. No distance filter. Fake profiles with templated money offers. Account deletion is impossible. Several complaints about charges continuing after deleting the app.
Pour qui : Couples and singles open to swinging in large cities with a dense audience. Almost no chance in smaller cities.
The algorithm is built to retain users, not to produce matches. Profiles go unanswered, dead matches accumulate, and moderation does not respond to threats.
Points forts : Women who write first have sometimes found real people and built conversations. The first-move mechanic reduces pressure on men.
Reproches : Dead conversations with no replies. Shadow bans without warning. Complaints about threats of violence left without response from support.
Pour qui : Women willing to write first and accept low activity.
An app for the Latino audience with a serious quality problem: many fakes and inactive profiles, distance filters that do not work, and an algorithm that deliberately suppresses organic matches. Real meeting stories exist but are rare.
Points forts : The rare couples who did find a partner through Chispa mention the niche focus on Latinos.
Reproches : Fake likes to provoke purchases. Dead and unverified profiles. Distance filters are ignored.
Pour qui : Latinos willing to sift through a lot of noise in search of real people.
Wild is positioned as a casual-encounters app, and a small share of users do find real contacts. However, the live user base is thin and geographically uneven: in rural areas and small cities there is practically no one. Bots and fakes are present but do not dominate the way they do in Mingle2 or Ashley Madison.
Points forts : The private-photo feature, which lets users share selectively, is appreciated by those who value control over personal data. Some users note that people here state their intentions honestly, which simplifies communication.
Reproches : The active audience is concentrated in a few cities. Elsewhere it is mostly inactive or long-outdated profiles. Bots appear often enough to be an inconvenience.
Pour qui : Residents of large cities looking for no-strings encounters. Not suitable for people outside major urban areas or those wanting to build up a conversation before meeting.
The plus-size dating app is positioned as a community but in practice has become a venue for scammers, adult-content sellers, and beauty contests with cash prizes. Real couples are rare and moderation is weak.
Points forts : The 'moments' feature (photo posts) gives a quick feeling of attention. A few users genuinely found partners, including one woman who found her husband after several years of use.
Reproches : Scammers and bots in every second conversation by users' own accounts. Cash-prize contests turned the feed into a beauty competition rather than a dating space. Moderation does not respond to complaints.
Pour qui : Plus-size women with a high tolerance for noise and a willingness to personally verify every contact's authenticity.
The app is positioned as an exclusive club for Black professionals with manual profile review. According to reviews, the screening barely works: the crowd is no different from mainstream apps, fakes pass verification, and the algorithm ignores age and distance settings.
Points forts : The existence of a space oriented toward Black users is valued by those who felt underrepresented on universal platforms. A few people found quality matches.
Reproches : The claimed 'screening' is not felt in practice. Men in their 20s appear for women who specified ages 35 to 45. Most likes are hidden behind a $30-per-month paywall. Fake profiles pass photo verification.
Pour qui : Black singles willing to pay for a theoretically higher-quality audience. Works better in large cities with a high user density.
The polyamorous and swinging niche is in demand, but the audience is concentrated in one location and the algorithm apparently hides mutual matches.
Points forts : Several users noted that profiles look more real than in other niche apps. Some couples found live matches.
Reproches : The audience is concentrated in one location and does not reflect actual geography. The algorithm seemingly hides mutual matches to push users toward a paid plan.
Pour qui : Polyamorous couples and singles looking for a niche community, if they live in a large city with an active base. For most regions the app is empty.
An anonymous chat service with its own matchmaking mechanic based on an 'energy' currency. The core product problem is automated bans without appeal or explanation, described by dozens of users including paying ones. Men mass-send explicit photos to women. Moderation is inconsistent: rule-breakers stay while normal users get banned.
Points forts : Anonymity attracts those who do not want to reveal their identity immediately. The concept of low-pressure introductions through short chats without immediate photo sharing appealed to part of the audience.
Reproches : Arbitrary bans without any appeal process, a systemic problem. Unwanted explicit content from men. The sparks mechanic drains the balance quickly with no real matches to show for it.
Pour qui : Suitable for those seeking anonymous interaction without photo pressure, willing to risk a ban, and tolerant of imperfect moderation.
A queer platform with screenshot protection, but AI sends messages and likes on behalf of users without their knowledge, which destroys trust.
Points forts : Historically one of the few queer-oriented platforms with screenshot protection and profiles for various gender identities.
Reproches : AI mass-likes and messages without user permission. Distance filters reset automatically. Men penetrate the lesbian space.
Pour qui : LGBTQ+ audience in the absence of alternatives, but with awareness of the current issues.
Bots write first and redirect to other messengers. Accounts get blocked within the first minutes without explanation. Live audience is practically nonexistent.
Points forts : Profiles contain more detail than on typical competitors. The interface is simple and clear.
Reproches : Bots message first and immediately redirect to other messengers to extract money. Accounts get blocked within the first minutes without reason.
Pour qui : Not recommended for anyone. Those who tried it recommend avoiding it.
A niche platform for the African American community with an outdated interface and a catastrophically thin active base in most cities.
Points forts : The existence of a niche platform with a shared cultural context is valued. Individual users have found real people.
Reproches : The same profiles cycle repeatedly even in major metros. The interface looks dated compared to competitors. Support replies automatically without engaging with the actual issue.
Pour qui : Older African Americans in large cities willing to accept an outdated interface in exchange for a niche focus.
The idea of matching through music taste (Spotify and Apple Music integration) is unique and praised for its mechanic. But the platform is so overrun with scammers that real matches almost never happen. The standard scenario is: match, immediate question for WhatsApp, move there, attempted fraud. The 'now playing' feature works. Actual dating does not.
Points forts : The music-taste matching feature genuinely works as an icebreaker. Users discovered new artists through real people's profiles.
Pour qui : Music lovers who want to connect through shared taste, but be prepared for most contacts to be fake.
An app for dating and friendship that has degraded toward monetization. The core problem is not bots but broken verification that bans live users and inconsistent moderation: rule-breakers stay while honest users get blocked.
Points forts : It previously allowed people to find friends and conversations. The feed concept and shared interests are functional.
Reproches : Verification randomly bans real users. Shadow blocks without explanation. Unwanted content goes unmoderated.
Pour qui : A young audience looking for friends rather than romance, if they manage to pass verification.
The largest geolocation grid for gay dating, but the overwhelming majority of sessions begin with bots, scammers, and spam.
Points forts : The proximity grid is unique and genuinely works in dense urban areas. The queer audience is large and diverse.
Pour qui : Gay and bisexual men in large cities willing to put up with spam.
The concept is honest: the profile openly includes sexual preferences, which reduces misunderstandings. In practice the audience is nearly absent even in large cities, and most active profiles are bots with OnlyFans accounts or blackmailers.
Points forts : An open-ended questionnaire about bedroom interests helps filter out incompatible people before the first message.
Reproches : Vanishingly few real users. OF-link bots dominate. Cases of sextortion have been documented.
Pour qui : The idea is good but the audience is not there yet. Worth waiting until the base grows.
Positioned as a Christian dating app but owned by Match Group and behaves like a typical monetization aggregator. Denomination and distance filters do not work. Fake accounts actively message users immediately after sign-up, creating the illusion of interest. Real believing users are few, and they complain about the absence of compatible people. A few marriages have occurred, but these are the exception.
Points forts : The niche at least filters out people with fundamentally different values. A few users genuinely found partners and started families.
Reproches : Bots message immediately after sign-up. Distance and faith filters are not respected. Accounts get blocked without explanation. Some real male users show toxic behavior.
Pour qui : Believers looking for a partner with shared values, but prepared for disappointment and careful about fakes. Not suitable for those expecting working filters.
The concept of meeting people you have already seen in real life is interesting, but the execution is destroyed by fake profiles and scammers who immediately redirect the conversation to WhatsApp or Telegram. Moderation fails, and support according to reviews behaves aggressively.
Points forts : The idea of 'you have already crossed paths with this person in the city' creates a sense of real context for meeting. A few users describe genuine encounters.
Reproches : The overwhelming majority of matches are scammers following similar scripts (models from Asia, stories of family hardship, requests to move to a messenger). Age and geolocation filters are unreliable.
Pour qui : People in large cities with a high tolerance for noise who want to find someone they have seen 'in real life'. The concept works in theory but current execution makes it nearly impossible in practice.
A BDSM and kink dating app with a decent concept, destroyed by monetization and weak moderation. Verification gets stuck on 'pending' for a day or more. Real users exist but are outnumbered by OnlyFans sellers, bots, and scammers.
Points forts : The existence of a legitimate kink dating platform is valued by an audience that cannot openly state their interests anywhere else. Interest filters and built-in events are useful mechanics.
Reproches : Account verification regularly stalls, blocking access for days. A large share of profiles are OF sellers, bots, or scammers. For gay men the app is nearly useless: straight men appear even with correct settings.
Pour qui : People who openly identify with BDSM or kink culture and are looking for partners with matching interests. Requires patience and willingness to filter manually.
Messaging without an extra plan sets the app apart from competitors, but the audience is overrun by Eastern European scammers posing as American women.
Points forts : Free messaging is rare in this class of apps. A few users found long-term relationships and even married through the platform.
Reproches : Moderation is effectively absent and verified profiles turn out to be fakes. The algorithm shows profiles from other states despite a set radius.
Pour qui : Users willing to filter out scammers themselves in exchange for free messaging, and those who have had successful past experience on the platform.
An original auto-scheduled video-date mechanic, but almost no live audience and most assigned partners do not show up.
Points forts : The idea of automatically scheduled video meetings with conversation topics is unique and is liked by those who have tried it.
Reproches : Most assigned conversation partners do not join the video. The same phantom account is assigned to people in different states. Scammers are active immediately after sign-up.
Pour qui : In theory for those who want to meet through video without painful swiping, but in practice finding a real person on the platform is extremely difficult.
The largest swipe-app base, but the algorithm surfaces inactive profiles and shadow bans without explanation devalue even real matches.
Points forts : The largest audience on the market. Real people do appear, especially in large cities.
Reproches : Shadow bans without notification. Old inactive profiles in the feed. Interest filters do not work as expected.
Pour qui : Those who prioritize reach and are willing to deal with moderation.
The app lures users with artificial likes in the first days, then fills up with bots and content sellers after sign-up. Finding a real conversation partner is extremely difficult.
Points forts : Women note more respectful men compared to similar apps. A handful of users report real meetings.
Reproches : Bots and content sellers make up the majority of active profiles. Matches disappear and moderation ignores scammer reports.
Pour qui : Not recommended to anyone in the current state.
Detailed profiles with voice notes and non-standard questions set the app apart, but the audience is small and the distance filter effectively does not work in the free version.
Points forts : Voice notes and non-standard profile questions help you understand someone before the first conversation. A handful of users report real relationships.
Reproches : The distance filter does not work in the free version and shows people from other states. Suspicious likes immediately after account creation. Few live conversation partners.
Pour qui : Patient users in large US cities who value profile quality and are willing to invest in the paid version without being sure of the result.
The app is positioned as an elite platform for ambitious people, but in practice offers a tiny candidate pool, matches from other cities despite filters, and aggressive monetization. The quality promise does not translate into real meetings.
Points forts : The '5 candidates per day' format appeals to those tired of endless swiping. Profiles are on average more complete and readable than on mass platforms.
Reproches : The audience is so small that the algorithm shows people 200+ miles away, ignoring geographic preferences. The waitlist can last months.
Pour qui : Busy professionals willing to pay for fewer but more intentional options, who live in large metros with a real app audience.
Almost all incoming messages are from bots following the same Telegram script. Active real users are absent in most cities.
Points forts : Fast sign-up and a simple interface. A few users note lower prices compared to competitors.
Reproches : Almost all incoming messages are from bots following the same script. Most locations have no active real users. The app forces you to leave a review to continue using it.
Pour qui : Not recommended to anyone in the current state.
An old social network with real long-term users, overrun by aggressive commercial interruptions, bots, and content sellers after updates.
Points forts : Long-term users have maintained real friendships and connections for years. Chat rooms create a sense of community.
Reproches : Commercial interruptions literally block the interface with every action. New accounts get muted without explanation within the first minutes. Bots and nude-content sellers go unmoderated.
Pour qui : Nostalgic users who joined back in the 2000s and have maintained their circle there. Not a good choice for newcomers.
The audience is effectively absent even in large cities. The private-chat mechanic with disappearing photos is good, but there is no one to talk to.
Points forts : Self-destructing photos, voice messages, and screenshot-attempt notifications create a feeling of safety in real conversations.
Reproches : The audience is effectively absent even in large cities. Profiles shown before purchase and those shown after turn out to be different sets of people.
Pour qui : Not suitable for anyone in its current state. The privacy-focused adult-dating concept is interesting but useless without a live user base.
Niche positioning for the African American audience, but real people have been pushed out by bots and broken filters.
Points forts : A dedicated niche for Black singles exists. Individual success stories of real couples are present.
Reproches : Most matches are bots. Distance filters are ignored. The same profiles cycle for years.
Pour qui : Black singles with high tolerance for bots and glitches.
Positioned as an elite service for wealthy people at $99 per month or more, but the promise is not delivered. The audience includes predators offering money for sex, racists, and numerous scammers using stolen influencer photos. Verification is claimed but does not work. The interface has significantly degraded after recent updates.
Points forts : Rare users found partners oriented toward long-term relationships here. Identity verification through documents creates the appearance of screening.
Reproches : Scammers using influencer photos. Predatory behavior from some male users, including offers of money for sex. Search does not filter by geography and shows irrelevant profiles. Audience quality does not match the price.
Pour qui : Wealthy people looking for partners with similar means, but only if prepared to manually vet every profile.
Accounts get blocked without explanation immediately after payment. Real users are absent in most cities. Romance scammers are active even among verified profiles.
Points forts : The idea of screening by income level theoretically appeals to those for whom a partner's social status matters.
Reproches : Accounts get blocked without explanation immediately after payment. Real users are absent in most cities. Scammers appear even among verified profiles.
Pour qui : Not recommended.
Stir fills a genuinely underserved niche: dating for single parents where it matters that a potential partner is also raising children. The idea resonates and some users do find real connections. But bots and fakes arrived relatively quickly, the distance filter is unreliable, and moderation is slow to respond.
Points forts : Specializing in parents creates instant common ground from the first few minutes of conversation. One user calls it the best app they have tried and notes the absence of fakes at the time of writing.
Reproches : The distance filter regularly fails and shows people from other states. Bots and fakes have been reported by several users. The live user base is small: in small towns the chances of a match are close to zero.
Pour qui : Single parents in large cities who want to meet someone who understands what parenting involves. Not suitable for small towns or regions with low user density.
The concept of quality matches instead of endless swiping is appealing, but the algorithm does not learn from preferences and the audience outside large cities is dead.
Points forts : Profiles contain more information than on most apps. The fewer-but-better concept attracts seriously minded people.
Reproches : The algorithm does not learn from preferences and keeps showing the same people in rotation. Dead audience outside large cities. Mutual likes are hidden from the match without upgrading to a paid plan.
Pour qui : Seriously minded singles in large cities (primarily the US) who are tired of mass swiping and willing to wait for quality matches.
The right idea for a niche platform serving a rural lifestyle, but active users in most regions are nearly absent and the like limit runs out within minutes.
Points forts : The niche audience concept for people who value rural life is sound. Several users found real conversation partners.
Reproches : Active users are catastrophically scarce in most regions. The like limit is exhausted quickly. Age and distance filters are unstable.
Pour qui : Rural US residents looking for a partner with a similar way of life, provided they live in a relatively populated region.
Points forts : A large profile base. You can message without a prior like.
Reproches : 14 out of 15 matches are scammers. Abandoned profiles have been marked as active for years.
Pour qui : Patient users in small towns with no alternatives.
The app is flooded with blackmailers and scammers: several users report extortion attempts within the first hours. Almost no real people are nearby. The distance filter shows profiles from other states and countries.
Points forts : A handful of long-term relationships and even a relocation to be with a partner from another city. Such stories exist but are exceptional.
A once-lively community for casual socializing has degraded into a platform dominated by mass bots, scammers, and dead profiles. After the merger with Tagged, quality dropped critically: it is impossible to identify active users, moderation cannot keep up with the flood of fakes. Most real people you manage to reach are trying to redirect you to other platforms or extract money. Streamers have taken over the entire app space.
Points forts : In the past it was a place for real conversation without needing to match first. The swipe-free format appealed to those who just wanted to talk.
Reproches : The overwhelming majority of accounts are bots or scammers. It is impossible to distinguish active users from those who have been inactive for a long time. Moderation does not respond to complaints. Updates break basic features.
Pour qui : The app is effectively unsuitable for socializing. Not recommended for anyone looking for genuine interaction.
OurTime is designed for people over 50, and the idea is in demand. This audience is underrepresented on universal platforms. But the execution is weak: filters do not work, the app regularly shows people of the wrong orientation and age, and profile verification is minimal. A few users report real connections, but these are the exception.
Points forts : The focus on an older audience means most users have serious intentions. People are looking for friendship or long-term relationships, not just flirting. The interface is relatively simple for an audience that is not the most tech-savvy.
Reproches : Gender and orientation filters regularly malfunction. Many active users are scammers following standard scripts to move the conversation to a messenger. Technical support is nearly inaccessible when account problems arise.
Pour qui : People over 50 looking for serious relationships or friendship. But even for this audience better alternatives exist.
A niche app for age-gap dating that fails to meet basic technical requirements: constant timeouts, freezes when switching screens, and no way to delete an account. The audience is small, scammers are plentiful, and verification is essentially absent.
Points forts : Quick sign-up with a selfie-based check. Some users note the presence of real profiles in large cities.
Reproches : The app constantly freezes and times out even with a strong connection. There is no way to delete an account. Most messages come from bots redirecting to Telegram. The audience is concentrated in a few regions.
Pour qui : People looking for age-gap dating should consider other platforms.
Points forts : A handful of users with the right filters found real people. The interface is uncluttered.
Reproches : Bots attack within the first minutes after sign-up. Most responses lead to a request to move to Telegram or pay for a meeting.
Pour qui : Formally for adults seeking casual interaction. In practice there is no real audience.
A niche interracial dating idea with no working execution: no race filter, distance filters that do not work, and most messages from bots.
Points forts : The niche platform concept for interracial couples meets a real demand. A handful of users report genuine matches.
Reproches : No race filter despite the specialization. Bots respond within the first minutes. Gender settings reset on their own.
Pour qui : Users looking for interracial dating who found no space on universal platforms, but only if prepared to actively filter scammers manually.
The interface is completely locked until purchase. After purchase most profiles are bots or escorts. Real people are absent.
Points forts : A handful of users liked the time-limited chat concept as a way to add urgency. The interface is clean.
Reproches : Every action is blocked without purchase, including viewing settings. The overwhelming majority of profiles are bots or escorts. The account cannot be deleted without purchasing.
Pour qui : Not suitable for anyone in its current state. The audience is minimal and product mechanics are hidden behind an impassable paywall.
A German-origin app operating globally but with zero geolocation filtering: it shows people from other countries and continents. Real people from the same city are a rarity. Scammers write first and redirect to WhatsApp or Hangouts. The streaming feature is the only working tool for spotting fakes.
Points forts : The stream feature lets you see a live person and immediately identify a fake. Several users found real partners and report long-term relationships.
Reproches : No distance filter makes matchmaking meaningless. Scammers make up the overwhelming majority of incoming contacts. By one user's estimate, two out of 200 men turned out to be real.
Pour qui : Suitable for those willing to chat with people from other countries for social purposes rather than meetings, who know how to recognize scam patterns.
Match effectively does not work as a dating platform: most incoming messages are from scammers, the algorithm recycles the same profiles, and random bans happen hours after sign-up. Audience quality has collapsed over its decade-long history.
Points forts : A handful of users found a partner over the years. It was historically considered a serious platform.
Reproches : The audience is almost entirely scammers and bots. Arbitrary bans of new accounts. No support.
Pour qui : No one: the risk-to-result ratio is extremely unfavorable.
The audience is minimal even in large cities. Behind the entry screen it is mostly bots. Several users describe extortion cases.
Points forts : The concept of direct intentions without unnecessary rituals appeals to part of the audience. The interface is clean and intuitive.
Reproches : Almost no real users even in large cities. Bots simulate interest in the early stages. Several users describe real blackmail after photo exchanges.
Pour qui : Not recommended in its current state.
Points forts : The concept of discreet dating without judgment is in demand. A handful of users report real meetings.
Pour qui : The audience the app was built for, people in relationships looking for a parallel connection, effectively cannot find one here. Not recommendable in its current state.
An app for finding polyamorous and threesome encounters with an obviously a storefront star that diverges from review text. Real product experience is almost untraceable in the reviews: no specifics about audience quality, moderation, or successful meetings from real users.
Points forts : The concept of a niche platform for open relationships, swingers, and bisexual users is in demand. Few alternatives exist. Verified photos are mentioned as a plus.
Reproches : It is impossible to assess real audience quality and safety. Almost no real reviews. From the few critical entries available, profiles are lightly moderated and bios are very short.
Pour qui : Couples and singles looking for polyamorous or open relationship formats, assuming the inflation conceals a genuinely working product.
An instant flood of bots after sign-up. Very few real people. The product does not deliver the basic function of dating.
Points forts : The first hours after sign-up feel active, creating a positive first impression.
Positioned as a space for Muslims seeking marriage. In practice it is filled with scammers who exploit religious identity as cover: they use Islamic greetings, pose as Muslim soldiers, and transition to crypto schemes after a few weeks. Verification is practically absent. Most female profiles have no photo. One user documents financial losses after a romance scam.
Points forts : Detailed questionnaire questions about values and lifestyle set the right tone. Two users report a real marriage through the app.
Reproches : Scammers actively use Islamic terminology to build trust. Most female profiles lack a photo. Fakes share identical stories about military service. The complaint system does not work. Banned accounts return.
Pour qui : In theory for Muslims looking for marriage, but only with extreme caution: any quick move to WhatsApp and refusal to video call is a sign of fraud.
A dead dating app overrun by bots and streaming economics. Real conversation partners are nearly absent.
Points forts : In 2017 to 2020 it genuinely helped people meet. Several couples formed.
Reproches : The overwhelming majority of profiles are bots or content sellers. Almost no real dating happens.
Pour qui : Streamers seeking monetization, not for actual dating.
One of the oldest matrimonial services, with most matches coming from scammers, cancellation being nearly impossible, and a dead audience in smaller regions.
Points forts : The historical reputation for serious relationships attracts people 40+. The values-based compatibility algorithm is conceptually interesting.
Reproches : Scammers make up the majority of matches. The audience is nearly dead in smaller cities and entire regions. Auto-renewal with no cancellation option.
Pour qui : People 40+ looking for serious relationships or marriage, but only if they live in a large US city and are willing to personally verify every match.
The app literally requires a five-star review in exchange for unlocking content, which explains the anomalously high rating. Real reviews paint a different picture: bot profiles immediately redirect to Telegram, some accounts are escorts, cases of extortion and blackmail after photo exchanges have been documented, and local profiles are absent because the distance filter does not work.
Points forts : Fast sign-up and interface simplicity were noted by a few new users before they encountered bots.
Pour qui : Not recommended to anyone. The only scenario is casual curiosity without spending money, but even then the risks are high.
Points forts : In the past it was a working platform with a familiar interface. Some users remember real meetings.
Reproches : The audience in most cities has been inactive for months. Most responses come from romance scammers with foreign locations. The algorithm pushes irrelevant profiles.
Pour qui : Not recommended in its current state.
Most conversations lead to Telegram requests or demands for an upfront transfer. Several users describe real blackmail after video calls.
Points forts : A matching mini-game as an unusual mechanic was noted by some users. No intrusive interrupting ads compared to competitors.
Reproches : Scammers and fake profiles make up most of the audience. The account cannot be deleted. There is no distance filter. Several users describe real blackmail.
Pour qui : Not recommended to anyone.
A replacement for Craigslist Personals. Scammers make up the overwhelming majority of active audience: they write first, use identical scripts, and redirect to encrypted messengers. Real people are nowhere to be found. One user wrote that out of hundreds of profiles he messaged, not one turned out to be a real person.
Points forts : The ad-format without algorithms is conceptually interesting for those looking for a specific type of relationship without swipe gamification.
Reproches : The audience consists almost entirely of scammers with identical scripts. No women on the platform according to male users. The interface is unresponsive.
Pour qui : Practically no one in its current state. In theory for the Craigslist Personals audience, but real people are not there.
The app was killed by an update: global search was removed, all history and contacts were lost, and 99 out of 100 matches are fakes.
Points forts : Before the update there was a live global audience and a streaming community.
Reproches : After the redesign the audience is dead and almost all profiles are fakes or sex bots.
Pour qui : Nostalgic users of the old Tagged. Not suitable for new users.
Points forts : The basic interface is simple and profiles can be browsed without paying.
Pour qui : No one to recommend it to. The app does not fulfill the basic function of dating due to a critical mass of fakes and the absence of moderation.
The app promotes itself as a video-call dating platform, but the real audience has been replaced by scammers. Users describe universal fakes, photo extortion, bitcoin schemes, and redirection to Telegram. Anyone looking for a real person has no business here.
Points forts : The idea of video-based meetings with people from other countries sounds appealing, and a few users found long-term relationships years ago when the platform was just launching.
Reproches : Practically all conversation partners are bots or scammers. The video chat is used mainly for sexual shows rather than dating. Accounts get blocked without explanation.
Pour qui : No one looking for a real partner. Historically attracted people interested in international socializing, but that niche has long been taken over by scammers.
Small audience. Most incoming contacts are bots with identical scripts. Almost no real people even in large cities.
Points forts : Conversation partners at least send a rejection rather than going silent, which is noticeable compared to other apps.
Reproches : Bots with the same photos under different names make up most contacts. The account cannot be deleted without contacting support. People from other cities dominate.
The app is overrun by scammers and fakes. Users have run experiments: they wrote to dozens of profiles and all turned out to be scammers. Even verified accounts are fake. Profile locations are constantly faked. Moderation does not respond to complaints.
Points forts : Platform veterans note the large profile base and the ability to find a Russian-speaking audience. A handful of users report real meetings and long-term relationships.
Reproches : Near-total domination of fakes and bots, including verified accounts. Scammers follow scripts, quickly move to Telegram, and demand money or data. Support ignores complaints.
Pour qui : Practically no one. Historically for the Russian-speaking diaspora, but today the audience has been replaced by scammers.
A dating app targeting a Filipino audience, completely overrun by scammers. Literally every second review describes the same scheme: first message 'hello/hi handsome', then a move to WhatsApp or Telegram, then a request for money. Photos are easily identified as stolen via reverse image search.
Points forts : Almost nothing. A handful of users mention that some real profiles do appear, but they are hard to find.
Reproches : The app is dominated by scammers from Nigeria and other countries using stolen photos. No profile verification. Support does not respond to complaints. Reported accounts continue operating.
Pour qui : Not recommended in its current state.
The concept of patient algorithmic matchmaking is appealing, but nearly no one among the reviewers has received a single real match over the entire period of use.
Points forts : The no-infinite-scroll matching concept and the interest-question algorithm receive praise even in scathing reviews.
Reproches : Not one confirmed real match among hundreds of reviews. Profiles look fake or pulled from external sites. Match notifications are used as a trap.
Pour qui : No one. Even those willing to pay for a more thoughtful approach to dating will get nothing this product promises.
The app is positioned as a serious service for the Indian diaspora, but the audience has been taken over by scammers. Blackmail and sextortion through video calls after matches have been documented. Real active users are nearly absent: out of hundreds of profiles, people report finding no one who had opened the app within the past week. Verification is claimed but does not protect against fake accounts.
Points forts : The concept of the only niche service for educated Indian diaspora members oriented toward serious relationships. One user noted the team helped restore an account when changing a phone number.
Reproches : Fake profiles and scammers make up most of the active audience. Blackmail schemes through video calls have been documented. Dead audience outside India. Match alerts for new users are absent.
Pour qui : Possibly suitable for residents of large Indian cities willing to carefully verify every contact and never move to a third-party messenger.
The same mechanic as Dating.com: a flood of fake messages immediately after sign-up and a charge per letter with no path to a real meeting.
Points forts : The concept of an app for mature dating resonates. The 40+ audience is genuinely looking for such a product.
Reproches : Mass fake profiles including accounts that overlap with Dating.com. Operators simulate real people. Credits are charged for every action on top of the base plan.
Points forts : Almost nothing real by the criteria of a live audience.
Reproches : All incoming messages are from bots or scammers. Banners interrupt every action. Account verification is nonexistent.
The app is built on an asymmetric model: men pay gems per message, women allegedly receive money for chatting. In practice most conversation partners are bots. Real connections almost never form. Money drains quickly.
Points forts : The 'social dating with monetization' concept initially attracts some women with small early payouts. The interface is simple and navigation is intuitive for new users.
Reproches : Bots flood the feed from the first minute of sign-up. Men spend significant sums without realizing they are not talking to real people. Women report payouts stopping after the first withdrawal.
Pour qui : Formally for dating and socializing. In practice the product does not work as intended.
Hired operators or bots carry on conversations with paying users, simulating real interest. No conversation partner ever agrees to communicate outside the platform.
Points forts : Beautiful profiles and an international audience for those looking for long-distance connections. The interface is described as pleasant.
Reproches : Operators pretend to be real users and refuse to communicate outside the app. Conversations are deliberately cut off to prompt credit purchases.
Pour qui : No one. This is not a dating service in any practical sense.
The app works on a scheme: AI characters lure users into conversations then block replies without purchasing 'diamonds'. Real users are rare. According to reviews this is not a dating service but monetization of the illusion of connection.
Points forts : The idea of 'one algorithm-chosen match per day' appeals to those who want more intentional dating. The interface is clean and visually pleasant.
Reproches : Virtually all active profiles are AI bots. Real conversation with a live person is practically unachievable without significant spending on in-app currency.
Pour qui : Not recommended in its current state.
Elles aident à comparer les apps, mais ne remplacent pas la vérification de ta propre tâche.
Le score conservé de l’étude inApp sur les textes des avis. Il évalue l’ensemble de l’app dans l’archive, pas la fiabilité d’une fonction précise.
La note de la page de l’app au moment de la collecte. La note et la version actuelles peuvent différer.
Dans l’échantillon archivé de ce sujet : 100 apps et 47 280 avis lus. C’est le volume total de l’étude, pas le nombre d’avis par app.
Un écart entre les chiffres ne prouve pas de manipulation. La date de calcul et la méthode complète du score ne sont pas dans l’archive mobile. Compare les descriptions des tâches et les citations sources, et vérifie les conditions dans la version actuelle.
Comment les avis deviennent des conclusionsLe corpus, les thèmes et les limites de l’annotationLes chiffres et les conclusions viennent des avis enregistrés. Les versions actuelles des apps ont pu changer.
