Comparing Casual Dating Apps: Our Method
We do not publish a ranked best-of list, because we have not tested enough to defend one. What we publish instead is the comparison the ranking would have been built from.
Why there is no numbered list here
A ranked list implies a measurement. Ours would currently be built on operator confirmation and uptime checks, which are real but are not the basis anyone means by best. Publishing a ranking anyway would be the exact practice this site exists to avoid.
Our comparison table is ordered by how much we have independently verified. That is defensible today and it moves as verification lands.
What we would need to rank honestly
Verified pricing including renewal rates by country, a documented deletion route per platform, and a tested answer on whether early messages come from real users. Those three would support a ranking. Two of them require paid accounts and the third requires a controlled test.
What to do meanwhile
Use the comparison table for the facts we have checked, and use the free tier of any platform to answer the rest yourself. The response-rate test, the empty-profile test and the block test each take under an hour and each tells you more than a star rating.
The three tests, in order of usefulness
Response rate: ten first messages from a complete profile, count replies inside 48 hours. Empty profile: register with nothing, wait an hour, count unprompted messages. Block test: block an account and check whether it disappears from search or merely stops messaging.
Each takes under an hour, none requires payment, and between them they answer the questions a star rating pretends to.
What would change our position
Verified pricing for at least eight of the sixteen platforms we track, with renewal rates and the countries each applies to. A documented deletion route for the same set. Those two would support an ordering that means something beyond uptime, and both are on the work list rather than in the table.