App Store, Google Play and Trustpilot
| Source | Rating | Count | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| App Store | 4.3 / 5 | 7,576 | September 22, 2026 |
| Google Play | 3.5 / 5 | 3,652 | September 22, 2026 |
| Trustpilot | 1.7 / 5 | 21 | September 22, 2026 |
The App Store and Google Play numbers are each every rating the store has ever recorded for the app, not a recent sample. Trustpilot’s 1.7 comes from a much smaller and older base: 21 reviews in total, read September 22, 2026, running from October 30, 2019 to June 12, 2026. Of those 21, 11 are one star and 10 carry a reply from the company. Nearly seven years between the oldest and newest review is a long stretch for one product to hold steady over, and a review from early in that range describes a version of the site that has had years to change since. One five-star review from that early group still reads: I met my boyfriend on it and we are gonna get married next summer
Plain curl requests with browser headers were blocked by an AWS WAF challenge (HTTP 403) on two attempts; the score, review count and review text below come from a headless-Chromium read of the page’s own data instead.
What reviewers praise
In this site’s 50-review App Store sample, 8 reviews state a clear positive about the app, the idea, or the community, and a further 2 describe real emotional support tied specifically to the shared-condition community rather than the app in general. One five-star review, describing how the app led to a marriage, put it this way: I met the woman who would become my wife through Positive Singles.
Reviews at three stars sometimes praise the same thing while still complaining elsewhere in the same review: one calls the app itself wonderful with plenty of people on it, right alongside an objection to paying before you can message any of them.
Praise clusters around the idea PositiveSingles is built on, a dating and support space limited to people who already share a diagnosis, more than around any specific feature. Nobody in the sample praised the app’s search, its notifications or its pricing.
What reviewers complain about
Two themes dominate the sample by a wide margin: the free tier’s paywall, which 24 of 50 reviews say blocks messaging, seeing who liked you, or most other real use of the app, and the price itself, which 23 call too high for what it buys. Those two overlap in a lot of reviews, but neither theme is padding out the other. A thinner or more suspicious-looking pool of other members is the next most common complaint, raised in 12 reviews describing too few or too distant local members, inactive matches, or profiles that look empty or fake. A billing or account problem, such as a suspension after paying, an unwanted resubscription, or a sign-in that stopped working, shows up in 6 reviews, and a plain technical bug, most often a notification that doesn’t fire until the app is reopened, shows up in 4.
A small number of reviews, 3 in the sample, describe an unsafe or unwanted encounter with another member, including an account allegedly reused to keep contacting someone after being blocked. This site read those as reviews, not as confirmed incidents, and cannot verify either account beyond what the reviewer wrote. It’s reported here because it recurred at all in a sample this size, not because this site found evidence beyond the review text.
How much weight to give a store rating
The App Store’s 4.3 out of 5 and this page’s recent-review sample come from the same app and disagree sharply: 34 of the 50 newest reviews are one star, and only 8 state anything positive. Both numbers are real. The aggregate score is built from 7,576 ratings going back to whenever the app launched, most of them stars with no review text attached, while the sample here is text reviews only, written recently, by people motivated enough to type something. People tend to write a review right after something frustrates them, commonly the moment a free account hits the paywall, which skews any recent-reviews sample toward complaints in a way the silent-star aggregate doesn’t show.
Google Play’s 3.5 sits between the App Store’s aggregate and Trustpilot’s, on a review count smaller than the App Store’s and larger than Trustpilot’s. Trustpilot’s 1.7 is the lowest of the three by a wide margin, and it’s worth including precisely because it isn’t tied to either app store’s review mechanics, even though its base is far smaller and far older: 21 reviews across nearly seven years, against an App Store sample of 50 confined to the last ten months. Treat the numbers on this page as different measurements of the same product taken different ways, not as votes that should agree. For longer, first-person accounts rather than star ratings, this site’s Reddit page covers what people say in their own words.
Who PositiveSingles suits
Someone who wants a dating pool that already understands an STI diagnosis, and who is willing to pay to message people rather than browse for free, is the person this app’s own praise describes. The community-support theme in the sample, thin as it is, points at something real: a handful of reviewers found a specific kind of connection here they say they didn’t expect to find elsewhere. If you already expect a subscription site and you’re comparing PositiveSingles against staying on general apps and managing disclosure yourself, the complaints above are mostly about price and volume, not about the core idea failing.
Who should look elsewhere
If free messaging matters more to you than a condition-specific pool, the paywall complaint in this sample is the single most common thing to trip over, and it is how the product is built rather than a bug. If you’re in a smaller city or a less populated area, the low-activity complaints here suggest the local pool can be thin enough to notice, and one reviewer specifically flagged a thin pool for women seeking women. And if a fast, visible response to a reported safety problem matters a great deal to you, weigh the handful of reviews above alongside how PositiveSingles’ support channels actually work before you commit a card to it.
