A Bluetooth tracker whose usefulness depends entirely on how many other people run the app. Against a competitor with hundreds of millions of devices in the network, that is a hard problem.
This entry is written from the 3 sources listed at the bottom of the page. The numbers are our editorial estimates drawn from that material, not measurements, and no statistical sample sits behind them.
It depends on how you will use it. 48% would buy it again, which means roughly 52% would not. Network density is the structural problem and it has not improved.
The first time something is genuinely lost is the test, and the network size is what decides it. That is not a problem more use fixes.
Network density is the structural problem and it has not improved. Subscription for premium finding features. Owners switching to the rival report much better results.
Worth it for: Android users who cannot use the rival; Finding things inside a house; Anyone who wants a keyring hole. Think twice if: You own an iPhone and could use AirTag; You need to find things far from home; Subscription features would annoy you.
Our reading of how sentiment moves across an ownership period, drawn from the sources below. It is an editorial estimate, not tracked longitudinal data.
| At purchase | 7.4 / 10 |
|---|---|
| First week | 7.8 / 10 |
| One month | 6.8 / 10 |
| Six months | 6.2 / 10 |
| One year | 6.0 / 10 |
| Two years or more | 5.9 / 10 |
Owner reviews move this score. The researched figure stays visible next to it, so you can always see what the sources said before anyone voted.
Leave a review on the live pageEvery complaint and every piece of praise above traces back to these. The summaries are ours; nothing is quoted, and no link, quote or username anywhere on this site is invented.
Direct comparison including the finding-network advantage.
Feature-by-feature comparison of the two trackers.
Tested comparison of real-world finding performance.