We aim for honest, actionable dating app comparisons. This page explains exactly how we test, what we claim, and where our research limits are.
What we test
Pool density: We evaluate each app in multiple markets (US major metros, DACH cities) by creating real accounts and measuring active profiles within standard search parameters over a two-week period.
Match quality: We track match-to-date conversion rates via reader surveys. These are self-reported data from real users, not internal platform metrics. Sample sizes: 200–450 per app per survey cycle.
Pricing accuracy: All pricing is verified against official platform pages or trusted third-party sources within 30 days of publication. Prices change; dynamic pricing (Tinder) may differ from your in-app price.
Fake profile indicators: We test photo verification strength, response rates on newly created accounts, and use established third-party research where available.
User interface and features: Evaluated by the editorial team through direct use.
What we don’t claim
- Internal conversion data from platforms (they don’t share it)
- Absolute “success rate” percentages – only reader-survey data from our own panels
- Optimal pricing for your specific account (Tinder’s dynamic pricing means your price may differ from ours)
Conflict of interest statement
We do not accept payment from dating app companies for editorial coverage. We use generic CTAs (“Visit Bumble”, “Full review”) rather than affiliate tracking links. Revenue comes from display advertising, not performance commissions.
Data freshness
Content is reviewed and updated on a rolling basis. Each article carries a “Last updated” date in the frontmatter. If a price, policy, or platform has changed significantly since our last update, please contact us via the form on the contact page.
Our team
All articles are signed by individual authors. Primary researchers: Clara Hensley (EN) and Nora Beckmann (DE). Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial operations.