Noom vs MyFitnessPal: which tracker actually helps? Noom and MyFitnessPal both show up when you search for a calorie tracker, but they solve different problems. MyFitnessPal is a food logging tool built around a database of over 20 million foods. You scan, search, or speak your meals, and it returns the numbers: calories, protein, carbs, fat. Noom is a behaviour-change program built around psychology-based lessons and optional coaching. It includes a food logger, but the logger is a supporting feature, not the core product. That distinction matters. If you already know what to eat and just need a place to track it, one of these is overkill. If you keep abandoning diets after two weeks, the other might not give you enough structure to stick. What Noom actually is. Noom calls itself a "personalized weight-loss experience" rooted in psychology and biology. The program includes daily lessons on topics like emotional eating, habit formation, and cognitive reframing. It pairs these with food logging, weight tracking, and (on some plans) access to a human coach. According to Noom's own pricing page, Noom Weight costs $17.42 per month on a 12-month plan, with a 7-day free trial. That plan includes psychology-based lessons, habit tracking, and optional coaching. For users who want medical support, Noom also offers a GLP-1Rx program starting at $129 with medication included, and a Microdose GLP-1Rx program starting at $79. The food logger inside Noom uses a colour-coded system. Green, yellow, and orange foods are grouped by caloric density. The idea is to steer you toward lower-density options without banning anything outright. But the logger itself is secondary to the lessons and coaching. If you are tracking macros in grams, Noom does not focus on that level of detail. What MyFitnessPal actually is. MyFitnessPal is a calorie and macro tracker with a database that spans over 20 million foods globally. PCMag describes it as "tightly focused on calories" and rates it 4 out of 5, noting its "excellent database of food and nutritional values" and compatibility with many apps and devices. The app connects with 35+ apps and devices for syncing steps, weight, and workouts. Logging tools include barcode scanning, photo-based meal scanning, and voice logging. You can set custom macro goals and track micronutrients beyond the big three. There is no coaching, no psychology curriculum, no daily lessons. MFP assumes you know your goals and gives you the infrastructure to measure against them. The core trade-off: structure vs precision. Noom gives you a framework for changing eating behaviour. Its daily lessons explain why you overeat, why cravings spike at certain times, and how to build routines that hold. The tracking is there, but it is designed to support the coaching rather than stand alone. MyFitnessPal gives you granular nutritional data. You can track grams of protein across every meal, compare your macro split day over day, and log foods from almost any restaurant or packaged product on the planet. But it does not tell you what to do with that data. The interpretation is on you. For someone who has never tracked food before and tends to fall off diets, Noom's structure could help build the habit. For someone who already understands macros and just needs a reliable logging tool, MFP's database depth and device integrations are hard to beat. Pricing side by side. | / | Noom Weight | MFP Free | MFP Premium | MFP Premium+ | | Monthly cost (annual plan) | $17.42 | $0 | ~€6.67 | ~€8.34 | | Monthly cost (month-to-month) | Higher (varies) | $0 | Not listed | €24.99 | | Free trial | 7 days | N/A | 7 days | 7 days | | Food database | Colour-coded system | 20M+ foods | 20M+ foods | 20M+ foods | | Macro tracking | Basic | Yes | Yes (custom goals) | Yes (custom goals) | | Barcode scan | Limited | Paid feature | Yes | Yes | | Coaching | Optional (included) | No | No | No | | Psychology lessons | Yes | No | No | No | | Meal planner | No | No | No | Yes (1,500+ recipes) | | Device integrations | Limited | 35+ apps | 35+ apps | 35+ apps | Noom's pricing reflects the coaching and curriculum. MFP's pricing reflects database access and logging tools. They are priced for different products because they are different products. Where each one falls short. Noom's gap: macro tracking. If you are trying to hit 180g of protein on a lean bulk or dial in a specific carb-to-fat ratio for a cut, Noom's colour system does not provide that resolution. You are working with broad categories (green, yellow, orange) rather than gram-level targets. For anyone following a structured macro plan, that is a real limitation. MFP's gap: behaviour change. The app gives you a dashboard, not a plan. If you open MFP, see you are 400 calories over by 3pm, and have no idea what to do about it, the app will not help you figure that out. PCMag puts it directly: MFP is "tightly focused on calories" and should not be confused for a weight-loss program. There is also the database accuracy question. MFP's food database is largely user-submitted. With 20 million entries, duplicates and incorrect entries exist. You can mitigate this by favouring verified entries and cross-checking against nutrition labels, but it adds friction. Which one works for macro tracking. If you are counting macros in grams, MyFitnessPal is the more capable tool. Custom macro goals, per-meal breakdowns, micronutrient tracking, and a barcode scanner that covers most packaged foods make it purpose-built for that workflow. Noom is not designed for macro tracking. Its food categorisation system groups foods by caloric density, which is useful for portion awareness but does not translate to "I need 40g of protein at this meal." For a deeper look at macro-friendly trackers, see its MyFitnessPal alternatives comparison, which covers apps specifically built around macro targets. If your main question is whether MFP or Lose It handles calorie tracking better, Maccy break that down in Lose It vs MyFitnessPal. The hardgainer angle. If you are trying to gain weight with a fast metabolism, neither Noom nor MFP is specifically designed for that goal. Noom's program is weight-loss oriented by default. MFP is goal-agnostic (you can set it to gain, lose, or maintain), but it does not coach you on calorie-dense food strategies or meal timing for a surplus. For hardgainers, MFP's database depth is the more useful feature. You can log calorie-dense foods precisely, track whether you are actually hitting your surplus target, and see your weekly trend. The 47% underreporting gap that derails most weight gain attempts shows up clearly when you track every meal in an app with granular data. Noom's psychology lessons could help if your problem is consistency (forgetting meals, skipping eating windows), but its food system nudges you toward lower-calorie options, which is the opposite of what a hardgainer needs. Pick based on your actual problem. Choose Noom if: you have tried tracking before and quit, you tend to eat emotionally, you want structured guidance on what and why to eat, and you do not need gram-level macro data. The coaching and daily lessons add value when the core issue is behaviour, not information. Choose MyFitnessPal if: you know your macro targets, you want a fast logging experience with the largest food database available, and you prefer to make your own decisions about what to eat. The free tier handles basic calorie tracking. Premium unlocks the tools (barcode scan, custom macros) that make daily logging fast enough to sustain. Choose neither if: you want an app that sets your macros, adjusts them over time, and tells you what to eat at the gram level without daily psychology lessons. That is a different category of tracker entirely.

MyFitnessPal vs Cronometer: which is better? MyFitnessPal and Cronometer are the two names that come up in every "best nutrition tracker" list. They've earned it. But they solve the same problem in very different ways, and picking the wrong one means you either get speed without depth or depth without speed. Here's how they actually compare, what each one does better, and whether there's a way to skip the tradeoff entirely. The database: big vs verified. MyFitnessPal claims over 20 million global foods in its database. That's enormous. You can find almost anything, from chain restaurant meals to obscure protein bars, and log it in seconds. The catch is that much of this database is user-submitted. Anyone can add an entry, and not every entry is checked. You'll occasionally find duplicate items with conflicting nutrition data for the same food, which means the speed of finding something is offset by the uncertainty of whether it's right. Cronometer takes the opposite approach. Their database pulls from over 10 trusted sources, and every branded food item goes through a verification process before it's added. The result is a smaller but more reliable set of entries. Cronometer says their nutrition information is "sourced from lab-analyzed data, not crowd-sourced guesses," and the industry broadly recognizes them as the more accurate tracker. They track up to 92 nutrients and compounds, covering micronutrients that most apps ignore entirely. If you mostly eat packaged foods and eat out often, MyFitnessPal's size is a genuine advantage. If you care about the actual vitamin and mineral content of what you're eating, Cronometer's verified data matters more. Logging speed. Both apps still rely on the same core workflow: search for a food, scroll through results, pick the right one, adjust the serving size, confirm. MyFitnessPal has invested in making this faster. Premium subscribers get barcode scanning, meal scanning (point your camera at a plate), and voice logging. These are real time-savers, especially barcode scan for packaged foods. Cronometer now offers photo and voice logging too. But the app's depth works against it here. Because Cronometer tracks so many nutrients, the interface is denser. There are more fields, more detail, more data per entry. That precision is the point, but it slows you down if all you wanted was a quick calorie count after lunch. The fundamental bottleneck is the same in both apps: you're still matching what you ate to an item in a database. The food you actually made, with the specific ingredients you used, rarely maps perfectly to a pre-built entry. So you approximate. And the more you approximate, the less the precision of either database matters. Free tiers and pricing. Both apps offer free versions, but what you get for free is very different. MyFitnessPal's free tier covers basic nutrition and weight tracking, but locks barcode scanning, voice logging, custom macro goals, and ad-free logging behind a paywall. The Premium plan (which adds those features) runs around €80/year. Premium+, which adds a meal planner, 1,500+ recipes, and grocery app syncing, comes in around €100/year or €25/month if you go monthly. Cronometer's free version is more generous with tracking features. Their paid tier, Cronometer Gold, removes ads and adds premium features like custom charts and reports. Exact pricing varies, but it's generally positioned below MyFitnessPal's Premium tier. Both apps have crept their prices upward over the years. MyFitnessPal in particular has added a second paid tier (Premium+) where there used to be one, and moved previously-free features like barcode scanning behind the paywall. What each one does best. MyFitnessPal wins on: database size, logging speed for packaged foods, barcode scanning, app ecosystem (35+ integrations with fitness apps and devices), and sheer familiarity. It syncs steps, weight, and workouts from almost everything. Cronometer wins on: data accuracy, micronutrient tracking (92 nutrients vs the standard macros-and-calories), verified food entries, and depth of nutritional insight. If you're tracking magnesium, B12, or omega-3 intake, this is the one that actually shows you those numbers. The tradeoff nobody talks about. Here's the thing both apps share: they make you do the work of translating what you ate into database entries. Whether the database has 20 million items or 1 million verified ones, you're still the middleware. You ate "leftover stir fry with whatever was in the fridge." Now you need to find each ingredient, estimate each portion, and log them one by one. That's where most people quit. Not because the apps are bad, but because the gap between "I ate food" and "I logged food" is wide enough that consistency dies within a few weeks. A third option: just type what you ate. Maccy takes a different approach. Instead of searching a database, you type what you ate in plain language. "2 fried eggs, half an avocado, and 2 slices of canadian bacon." Maccy reads that, maps each item to USDA nutrition data, fills in the calories and macros, and logs it. If something looks off, you edit with words too: "skip the canadian bacon." Done. No searching. No scrolling through duplicates. No wondering if you picked the right database entry. The accuracy comes from USDA data, the same government-maintained source that Cronometer and other precision-focused trackers draw from. The speed comes from skipping the search-and-select step entirely. You describe your food the way you'd tell a friend what you had for lunch, and the logging just happens. Maccy is $9/month, with a 7-day free trial and everything included in one tier. No feature gating, no second paid plan, no barcode scanner hidden behind a paywall. It's available on Android and web now, with iOS coming soon. And it works with Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI tools, so you can ask about your eating patterns or get suggestions without leaving the conversation. It won't replace Cronometer if you need to track all 92 micronutrients down to the microgram. But if the reason you stopped tracking was that logging felt like data entry, it might be worth a look. Quick comparison. | / | MyFitnessPal | Cronometer | Maccy | | How you log | Search, scan, or photo | Search or photo/voice | Type what you ate | | Database | 20M+ foods (user-submitted) | 1M+ foods (lab-verified) | USDA nutrition data | | Macronutrients and calories | Yes | Yes | Yes | | Micronutrients | Basic | 92 nutrients tracked | None | | Free tier | Yes (limited) | Yes (more generous) | 7-day free trial | | Paid pricing | ~€80-100/year | Gold subscription | $9/month | | Best for | Fast logging, packaged foods | Accuracy, micronutrients | Speed, simplicity | Bottom line. MyFitnessPal is the right pick if you want the biggest database, the most integrations, and don't mind paying for the features that make logging fast. Cronometer is the right pick if accuracy and nutritional depth matter more than convenience. Both are solid apps that have earned their reputations. But if the real problem was never "which database is better" and always "I stopped logging because it was too much work," neither app solves that. That's the gap Maccy was built for. Try it free and see if typing beats searching.

ClassPass parent merges in $7.5B deal as fitness tech consolidates. The company behind ClassPass and Mindbody closes $7.5B merger with EGYM amid industry shakeup PUBLISHED: Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 2:23 PM UTC | UPDATED: Fri, Apr 3, 2026, 2:05 PM UTC 4 mins read * | ClassPass and Mindbody's parent company closes $7.5B merger in fitness tech's largest consolidation deal, per TechCrunch reporting * | Deal reflects broader industry shift as MyFitnessPal acquires AI calorie app Cal AI and Strava buys cycling app The Breakaway and running app Runna * | Merger creates fitness tech giant controlling booking platforms, studio management software, and millions of consumer subscriptions * | Move signals that standalone fitness apps need scale to compete as market matures beyond pandemic boom The fitness tech industry just witnessed its biggest consolidation move yet. The company behind ClassPass and Mindbody has closed a $7.5 billion merger, signaling that even well-funded fitness platforms need scale to survive the post-pandemic shakeout. The deal comes as competitors like MyFitnessPal and Strava race to acquire smaller players, transforming a once-fragmented market into a battle between mega-platforms. For studios, gyms, and the millions who discovered virtual fitness during lockdowns, this merger will reshape how they book classes, track workouts, and manage memberships. The fitness technology sector just got a lot smaller - and a lot more powerful. In a $7.5 billion transaction that rewrites the competitive landscape, the company behind ClassPass and Mindbody has completed a merger that creates one of the industry's largest platforms, according to TechCrunch. The deal isn't happening in isolation. It's the culmination of a consolidation wave that's been building since the pandemic's fitness boom faded. MyFitnessPal recently scooped up Cal AI, an AI-powered calorie counting app, while Strava absorbed both The Breakaway cycling app and Runna, a running-focused platform. The message is clear: in fitness tech, you either scale up or get acquired. What makes this merger particularly significant is the complementary nature of the businesses involved. ClassPass built its reputation connecting consumers with boutique fitness studios through a subscription model, while Mindbody powers the backend operations for thousands of those same studios. The combination creates a vertically integrated powerhouse that touches both sides of the fitness marketplace - a strategic advantage that standalone competitors will struggle to match. The $7.5 billion valuation suggests investors see enormous potential in consolidating a fragmented market. Before the pandemic, fitness tech was awash in venture capital, with dozens of apps competing for user attention. But as growth rates normalized and customer acquisition costs climbed, the economics shifted. Smaller players found themselves squeezed between rising marketing expenses and users' unwillingness to juggle multiple fitness subscriptions. For fitness studios and gyms, the merger brings both opportunities and concerns. On one hand, a single integrated platform could streamline operations, combining booking systems, payment processing, and customer management. On the other, increased market concentration means less negotiating leverage when it comes to fees and platform policies. Studio owners who already felt dependent on ClassPass for customer discovery now face a supplier with even more market power. The competitive response is already taking shape. Strava's acquisitions of The Breakaway and Runna signal an attempt to build a multi-sport ecosystem that keeps users engaged across different activities. MyFitnessPal's move into AI with Cal AI shows another path: using machine learning to create stickier, more personalized experiences that are harder to replicate. But neither approach yet matches the scale of combining consumer bookings with business management software. The timing also reflects broader shifts in consumer behavior. The pandemic-era surge in home fitness has largely reversed, with Peloton's struggles serving as a cautionary tale. Boutique studios have rebounded, but they're competing in a more competitive environment where digital engagement matters as much as physical locations. Platforms that can bridge online and offline experiences - exactly what a ClassPass-Mindbody combination offers - have a structural advantage. What's notably absent from the deal announcement are specifics about integration plans, potential redundancies, or how the combined entity will navigate potential conflicts of interest between its consumer marketplace and studio software businesses. Those details will determine whether this merger creates genuine synergies or simply concentrates market power without improving service. The consolidation trend extends beyond just M&A activity. It reflects a maturing market where network effects and data advantages increasingly separate winners from everyone else. Platforms with more users attract more studios; more studios attract more users. Breaking into that cycle gets harder as the leading players grow larger, which is precisely why we're seeing this rush to merge rather than compete. For consumers, the implications are mixed. Larger platforms can invest more in technology, potentially delivering better app experiences and more sophisticated recommendation algorithms. But reduced competition often leads to higher prices and fewer innovative features. The fitness tech boom of the 2010s was fueled by startups trying radical new approaches; a consolidated industry tends to play it safer. The $7.5 billion merger reshaping fitness tech isn't just about two companies joining forces - it's a signal that the industry's experimental phase is over. As platforms consolidate around a few dominant players, the focus shifts from growth at any cost to sustainable business models built on scale and data advantages. For studios, gyms, and fitness enthusiasts, the next chapter will be defined by how these mega-platforms wield their market power, whether they use it to innovate or simply to extract rents from a captive ecosystem. The M&A wave suggests more consolidation is coming, leaving less room for the scrappy startups that once defined fitness tech's culture. More Topics: