The current climate for dating apps is changing.

Dating app download rates are declining and users are experiencing dating app fatigue.

While many have found long and fulfilling relationships through online dating, today’s swiping singles are more hopeless and discontented with the experience than when we last examined this industry in 2019.

To make up for decreased downloads, many dating apps are squeezing current members with a pay-to-play model, where one-time or monthly payments can be made to increase the number of overall matches, the quality of potential matches, and the visibility of one’s profile. There are myriad issues users have with their dating app choices, but they especially do not take kindly to having to pay for what was once a free service.

Given this negative shift in the online dating world, it’s no surprise that innovators in the AI space are asking themselves how they can use cutting-edge technology to combat this issue. In fact, Bumble’s founder, Whitney Wolfe Herd, recently revealed that the app will use AI to create a “dating concierge,” allowing user personas to essentially date one another to narrow down the most viable matches for the human user to select from.

Despite dating app attitudes being at an all-time low, they remain wildly popular, with over 300 million people using dating apps worldwide, and about 20 million paying for premium features. It seems that despite being a generally unpleasant experience, online dating feels like a necessity for most in the modern era. After all, for many, finding their person could be just one swipe away.

This inelastic demand signals a great opportunity for dating apps to address major pain points users encounter in the digital dating world. To understand the online dating user experience, we used MUiQ to conduct a retrospective benchmark on seven of the most popular online dating services in 2024.

• Bumble
• Facebook Dating (app-only experience)
• Hinge (app-only experience)
• Match
• OkCupid
• Plenty of Fish
• Tinder

We computed SUPR-Q^® SUPR-Qm, and Net Promoter scores, investigated reasons for using the services, measured users’ attitudes regarding their experiences, conducted key driver analyses, and analyzed reported usability problems. (Full details are in the downloadable report.)

Study and Participant Details

In May and June of 2024, we asked 280 users of online dating services in the U.S. to recall their most recent experience and perception of one of the online dating services on their app or website in the past year.

Respondents with website experience completed the eight-item SUPR-Q (which includes the Net Promoter Score) and two-item UX-Lite^® standardized questionnaires. Those with mobile app experiences completed a simplified version of the SUPR-Qm and the NPS for mobile. All participants answered questions about their brand attitudes, usage, and prior experiences.

High Mobile App Usage

As apps became the new normal in online dating, we saw an increase in app users and a decline in those using websites, compared with our 2019 study.

Figure 1: Percentage of desktop, mobile app, and mobile web access to online dating services in 2019 and 2024.

Only 39% of our current sample (n = 108) used desktop or laptop computers to access their assigned service, but almost everyone (93%) used their designated mobile app. Users of dating apps most frequently reported using them a few times a week.

Users most frequently reported never visiting dating websites on a computer. Match was the most visited website, with 86% using it at least once in the past 12 months and 31% a few times a week.

Measuring the Dating Service UX:
SUPR-Q/SUPR-Qm

The SUPR-Q is a standardized measure of the quality of a website’s user experience and is a good way to gauge users’ attitudes. It’s based on a rolling database of about 200 websites across dozens of industries. Scores are percentile ranks that tell you how a website’s experience ranks relative to the other websites (50^th percentile is average). The SUPR-Q provides an overall score as well as detailed scores for subdimensions of Trust, Usability, Appearance, and Loyalty.

In what may be a result of the dating app fatigue mentioned earlier, the online dating websites in this study collectively performed poorly, averaging at the 9^th percentile, scoring worse than 81% of websites in the SUPR-Q database. Of these low rankings, Tinder was the poorest performer (3^rd percentile), with Match performing best (18^th percentile).

Distrust and Disloyalty

Across the dating experiences, Trust and Loyalty were the lowest-scoring SUPR-Q subscales averaging, respectively, at the 5^th and 8^th percentiles. A lack of loyalty indicates that users are likely bouncing from app to app hoping for better experiences or outcomes. This lack of loyalty comes as no surprise, as all seven of the dating apps received negative Net Promoter Scores (more detractors than promoters), as did all five of the websites.

In the categories of trust, loyalty, and usability, Match won across the board. For mobile apps, Match had the best NPS (−7%) and Hinge had the worst (−45%). For websites, Match was again rated highest (−13%), and Tinder was rated the least likely to be recommended (−52%). Finally, Match had the highest loyalty score of the five websites (16^th percentile, still a paltry score) while Tinder had the lowest (1^st percentile).

Surprisingly, while many users lamented the online dating experience, many included comments suggesting that, while unpleasant, this process is a requirement for dating in today’s world. This likely explains why, with such low SUPR-Q and NPS scores, there were no significant differences in users’ ratings of the likelihood to continue using the dating services.

Comments related to (dis)trust and (dis)loyalty across these apps and websites included:

• “Dating apps as a whole are not something I would recommend to anyone at this time, they have a chance to work out, but the experience on them is miserable.” — Bumble
• “It is hard to meet people in the old fashioned ways, so there are not a lot of options so I may be stuck doing online dating.” — Match

Usability Scores

Usability scores were below average across the online dating experiences. Match took the lead in this category, with the highest usability score (43^rd percentile). Bumble was just behind at the 39^th percentile. Plenty of Fish and Tinder had the lowest usability scores, both at the 15^th percentile. According to our UX-Lite responses, Tinder (2^nd percentile), Plenty of Fish (3^rd percentile), and OkCupid (4^th percentile) scored very low in overall usefulness and ease of use compared to the other dating services (which were also well below average, but these differences were not statistically significant).

Qualitatively, respondents mentioned their difficulty using the dating services and their frustration with the features and designs that are constantly shifting and updating. Users noted that they especially struggle with the sort and filter features for potential matches. Those who used dating websites noted that often the app was a more intuitive and efficient experience.

Comments related to usability across these apps and websites included:

• “Constantly changing features or how you access certain areas of the site.” — Match
• “I almost considered deleting the app because it felt confusing … but I hung on, got it and have kept the app.” — Hinge
• “[The website is] not as accessible as a mobile app and doesn’t change locations as continuously.” — OkCupid
• “At times, it can feel a bit clunky and not as intuitive as using it on its mobile app.” — Tinder

Key Drivers of the Online Dating Experience

Gathering ratings for a site or app is important, but understanding the factors that drive those scores is often the most actionable. Key driver analysis is a quantitative approach to understanding what factors impact users’ UX ratings, and when combined with top-box scoring, which of the key drivers offers the most opportunities for improvement. We therefore asked respondents to rate 25 attributes of online dating services (full details are in the downloadable report).

Having to pay for extras (12%) was the top driver for mobile ratings (Figure 2), and ease of learning about other people was the top driver (14%) for dating website ratings (Figure 3). The average top-box scores across both apps and websites for the key drivers ranged from 3% (willing to pay for extras) to 28% (easy to message), indicating that an investment in ease of messaging or a reduction in paywalls could substantially improve a user’s impression of a dating service.

Figure 2: Key drivers of the SUPR-Qm (mobile app ratings).

Figure 3: Key drivers of the SUPR-Q (website ratings).

Reasons for Use

Not everyone on dating apps is looking for their forever person. Some turn to dating apps for friendship, others for more casual interactions. It’s important to understand a user’s purpose on a dating site, as their intention can significantly impact the user’s level of satisfaction, according to a 2023 dating app survey. In a “select all that apply” question, our survey shows that people are primarily using dating services to find a serious relationship (59%) and are least likely to use them for a hookup (20%). While significantly fewer people are using the apps to hookup, 20% is still what we would consider a substantial use case, which is not to be ignored.

Figure 4: Main reasons for using online dating.

Tinder took the lead as the main hookup app, with 46% of users indicating they use it for this purpose. This draws an impressive divergence from apps like Facebook Dating and Match, which received only 7% and 8% respectively. On the other end of the dating spectrum, for those looking for a serious relationship, Facebook Dating (82%) and Hinge (80%) scored the highest in this category.

UX Problems

We examined verbatim comments to better understand the problems users experienced, finding themes connected to our SUPR-Q scores and key driver analyses.

Dishonest Users and Dating Scams

While dating services seem harmless on their surface, connecting users with strangers sows opportunities for scammers and catfishers (Figure 5). Across the dating services, 36% of users reported meeting a person who looked different in real life, a term lovingly coined as “catfishing.” Catfishing reigned supreme on OkCupid, where 45% of users reported having met a person who looked different in real life. This was followed closely by Tinder at 42% and Match and Plenty of Fish at 39%. Facebook Dating has a leg up in this category, with only 18% reporting that a person looked different in real life. This is a real advantage for the social media–driven service.

Figure 5: Real or fake? It’s hard to tell.

As far as more insidious scams go, a shocking 19% of all dating service users reported that they had been asked for money by a potential match. This happened most frequently on Tinder (37%), more than three times what was reported on Bumble (5%), Hinge (9%), and Facebook Dating (11%).

Finally, in our verbatim responses, we read complaints across all apps about interacting with bots, fake accounts, and inactive accounts. Some participants felt that this problem is an inevitable part of using online dating sites, while others felt it significantly detracts from the experience of online dating. One user summarized the experience:

• “Although the app has verification features, some fake profiles still manage to slip through, which can be frustrating and disappointing for users seeking genuine connections.” — Bumble

Most Lack Dating Success

While getting a date might feel like a win, there may be more value in a single high-quality match over a high quantity of matches. As shown in Figure 6, OkCupid exhibited the highest number of dates/meetings, with an average of 8.8 dates per user. Plenty of Fish came in second (7.7) and Bumble third (7.3). Conversely, Facebook Dating resulted in only 3.4 total dates/meetings on average.

Figure 6: Number of people met through various online dating services.

As shown in Figure 7, Match exhibited the highest quality matches (6.0 on a ten-point scale). Facebook Dating was not able to compensate for its low quantity, as it also came in lowest on quality (4.9).

Figure 7: Quality of in-person interactions.

Poor Matching Algorithms and Premium Features

Whatever the user’s intention on a dating app, a strong algorithm is the make-or-break component for a successful match. Unfortunately, participants reported that algorithms often fell short across the board, with only 11% indicating that their app is good at matching them with people. A low 6% of Plenty of Fish users thought the algorithm was good at this, and the most successful apps (Facebook Dating, Match, and OkCupid) still scored a low tie at 14%.

This is a major problem for dating services, and the issue is likely augmented by how many potential quality matches are now being hidden behind a paywall. Participants on all dating service sites except Facebook Dating felt frustrated by the cost of premium features, especially when these features facilitate the matching process (like the one shown in Figure 8 below). Participants noted that the sites are not effective unless users pay for the premium features. One user put it this way:

• “I get very few matches and messages on the app. I don’t like how you have to pay to win.” — Bumble

Figure 8: Bumble’s in-app purchases to increase the number of matches and conversations, an example of a practice that frustrates users.

Summary and Takeaways

An analysis of the user experience of seven online dating services found:

1. Users strongly prefer mobile apps over websites for online dating. A total of 93% of our participants reported using the dating service mobile app (39% used a computer). The most reported frequency of app use was several times a week (the most reported frequency of desktop website use was never).

2. The user experience with dating websites is poor. For the five websites evaluated in this study, the collective SUPR-Q score was at the 9^th percentile, scoring worse than 81% of websites in our database. Of these low rankings, Tinder was the poorest performer (3^rd percentile), and Match performed the best (18^th percentile). Users were not inclined to recommend the websites, with all sites receiving negative NPS scores (Match: −13%; Tinder: −52%).

3. Users reported problems with dishonest users and dating scams. Connecting users with strangers creates opportunities for scammers and catfishers. Across the dating services, 36% of users reported meeting a person who looked different in real life (e.g., 45% of OkCupid users; 42% of Tinder users). A surprising 19% of all dating service users reported that they had been asked for money by a potential match, most frequently on Tinder (37%).

4. Users are frustrated by poor matching algorithms and premium features. Participants reported that algorithms often fell short across the board, with only 11% indicating that their app is good at matching them with people, from 6% for Plenty of Fish to 14% for Match, OkCupid, and Facebook Dating). Participants on all dating service sites except Facebook Dating felt frustrated by the cost of premium features, especially when these features facilitate the matching process.

For more details, see the downloadable report.