Calorie Counter by fatsecret

Name: Calorie Counter by fatsecret
Availability: OnlineOnly
Rating: 4.76606 (13713 reviews)

Diet & Weight Loss Tracker

Budget-conscious trackersMacro-focused dietersApple Health users

4.8· 13,713 App Store ratings

Goal fit

How well this app matches common goals (0–10 from our enrichment). Higher means a stronger match.

Weight loss10.0/10
Body recomposition8.3/10
Calorie awareness8.3/10
Consistency8.3/10
Fat loss8.3/10
General health8.3/10
Macro tracking8.3/10
Meal planning8.3/10
Nutrition education8.3/10
Weight maintenance8.3/10
Habit building8.0/10
Muscle gain7.5/10

Who is it for?

Notes from our editorial team.

Best for

•Budget-conscious trackers — Users who need a comprehensive, ad-free calorie tracker without paying for a subscription.
•Macro-focused dieters — Individuals who prioritize detailed macro breakdowns by meal and day.
•Apple Health users — Those who want seamless data syncing between their fitness apps and Apple Health.

Less ideal for

•Users requiring high database precision — Those who get frustrated by incorrect nutritional data in crowdsourced databases.
•Users seeking AI-driven coaching — People looking for conversational AI guidance or automated workout coaching.

Review themes

Recurring topics in App Store reviews—what people praise vs. what frustrates them.

Users appreciate the app's balance between a robust free feature set and non-intrusive premium upsells, alongside effective macro tracking and barcode scanning. Common frustrations include database inaccuracies, a clunky food entry workflow, and difficulty managing or searching through previously logged items.

Liked themes

Generous free version
Users value that essential tracking tools are not locked behind a paywall.
~15 mentions
Macro tracking
The ability to view macros by meal and day is highly praised.
~12 mentions

Disliked themes

Database accuracy
Users report frequent errors in nutritional data for scanned items.
~20 mentions
Food entry workflow
The process for adding and finding foods is described as clunky and inefficient.
~18 mentions