Investigate limits & caps first
extreme · 14.7% of this app’s 34 negative reviews, against 2.8% typical store-wide.
How it compares
- this app
- 14.7%
- 5 of 34
- its shelf
- 2.9%
- rivals only
- store-wide
- 2.8%
- typical
Filippo Cicirelli
4.52star1,733 ratings
Counted from real App Store reviews · 2026-08-24 · nothing estimated or modelled
4.5out of 5
1,733 ratings · Apple’s own count, fetched daily
extreme · 14.7% of this app’s 34 negative reviews, against 2.8% typical store-wide.
high · 29.4% of this app’s 34 negative reviews, against 10.7% typical store-wide.
high · 26.5% of this app’s 34 negative reviews, against 13.2% typical store-wide.
elevated · 14.7% of this app’s 34 negative reviews, against 11.5% typical store-wide.
Billing, Performance all run well below the store’s typical rate.
All 9 panel members · 2026-08-24 snapshot.
| App | Ratings | Limits & caps |
|---|---|---|
| 1,733 | 14.7% | |
| 75 | 8.4% | |
| 45,027 | 8.3% | |
| 19,220 | 5.1% | |
| 2,647 | 4.2% | |
| 3,710 | 2.7% | |
| 822 | 0.3% | |
| 185 | 0% | |
| 2,017 | 0% |
Every complaint across twitter analytics and creator growth, frequency-ranked from real App Store reviews — the gaps nobody on this shelf has fixed.
Read the twitter analytics and creator growth reportEvery number is arithmetic over the reviews we hold, re-counted weekly — nothing modelled, nothing scored. Themes come from a frozen pattern classifier rather than a model reading reviews, so the same review always lands in the same bucket. Shares are of this app’s own recent negative reviews; the shelf figure is its rivals with this app excluded. The graded words have fixed cutoffs against the store’s typical rate: elevated from 1.15, high from 2, extreme from 3.5 times it. The page says what is broken and how it compares — never how to fix it, and never whether this app can win.