Why methodology matters
Dating app reviews on most sites are either vague lifestyle pieces or thinly disguised affiliate promotion. Neither is useful to someone trying to decide where to invest their time and money. We use a fixed framework because it makes comparisons meaningful and keeps our assessments honest — including to ourselves.
Our scoring criteria
Each platform is scored on six criteria. Each criterion is scored out of 10, and the overall score is the weighted average, rounded to the nearest half point:
1. User base quality (20%)
Density of CNM-identified users where people actually live — not raw registration numbers. Regional coverage; active user density in major cities; distribution across CNM relationship styles (polyamory, swinging, kink, open).
2. Verification and safety (20%)
Identity verification depth; photo verification; reporting mechanisms; how the platform handles disputes; data privacy practices and track record; what happens to your data if you delete your account. A documented data-protection failure caps this score until it is demonstrably fixed.
3. CNM-specific features and profile depth (20%)
Relationship structure options; gender and orientation inclusivity; ability to express CNM-specific preferences; partner linking and polycule visibility; filtering by CNM-relevant criteria. A mainstream app with a non-monogamy toggle but no structural support scores mid-range at best here.
4. Moderation quality (15%)
Response time on reports; consistency of enforcement; community standards; how the platform handles bad actors. We score what the platform does — drawing on community-reported experience and our own testing — not what its policy page says.
5. Pricing and value (15%)
What the free tier genuinely offers; premium cost relative to what it unlocks; whether the paywall is reasonable or artificially restrictive; pricing transparency across regions and terms. Prices in reviews are dated, because they change often.
6. Overall experience (10%)
Interface quality; speed; reliability; whether the product feels like it was built by people who understand the community.
What the scores mean
- 9–10 — Category-defining. Materially better than every alternative.
- 7–8 — Strong. Real weaknesses, but minor or affecting few users.
- 5–6 — Adequate. Works, with limitations a typical user will hit.
- 3–4 — Weak. Gaps significant enough to shape the whole experience.
- 0–2 — Failing. Broken, deceptive, or hostile to the community it claims to serve.
How we test
We create and maintain accounts on each platform we review. We use them. We experience the onboarding, the matching, the messaging, and the premium features firsthand. We also draw on community experience — reading extensively in CNM community spaces (Reddit, forums, community groups) — to understand patterns that go beyond any single account.
Reviews are re-checked at minimum every six months, sooner when pricing changes or significant news breaks. Platforms change; scores change with them. The update date is shown on every review, and it reflects a substantive re-check, not a cosmetic edit.
Every score and verdict is personally confirmed by the editor before publication. Nothing on this site publishes a rating automatically.
Affiliate relationships
We have affiliate relationships with some of the platforms we review. When you sign up through our links, we may earn a commission. This is disclosed on every review page and in our affiliate disclosure.
Affiliate relationships do not influence scores. Commission rate is not a criterion, appears nowhere in our scoring, and does not affect the order platforms appear in rankings. A platform with a high commission rate receives the same assessment as one with no programme at all. If a platform pays us commission and we think it's not worth your time, we say so.
Disputes and corrections
If a platform disputes something we've written, we re-verify the disputed facts. If we got something wrong, we correct it and note the correction on the page. If we got it right, it stays. Factual corrections never move a score unless the corrected fact changes a criterion assessment.