mSpy subscriber households were ~26% less likely than peer-app households to include children
Relative index of modeled children-at-home likelihood among U.S. App Store subscribers, 2022–2026; 100 equals the average for five parental-control and family-safety apps
Children-at-home likelihood index; peer average = 100
Source: YipitData U.S. e-receipt panel and modeled household attributes. mSpy n=657; household composition was known for ~551. The peer average covers Bark, Qustodio, Life360, FindMyKids, and FamiSafe.
Chart data
| Series | Children-at-home likelihood index; peer average = 100 |
|---|---|
| Five-app parental-control and family-safety average | 100 |
| mSpy subscribers | 74.2 |
Did mSpy subscribers also use Life360 less often than peer-app subscribers?
Yes. Life360 appeared among 12.5% of mSpy subscribers, compared with 24.3% of Bark subscribers, 19.7% of FamiSafe subscribers, 15.4% of FindMyKids subscribers, and 14.7% of Qustodio subscribers. Each rate uses App Store subscribers measured the same way, supporting a different subscriber mix for mSpy without establishing why anyone bought a monitoring app.
What can this comparison say about subscriber intent?
The comparison shows that mSpy’s measured App Store subscribers were less likely to have children at home and less likely to appear in the Life360 family-safety stack. It cannot identify who used the monitored device, why it was monitored, or whether the purchaser acted as a parent, employer, or partner. Those motives are not visible in receipt or modeled household data.
Assumptions & Methodologies
We analyzed U.S. Apple App Store subscribers from 2022–2026. mSpy matches began with the mSpy line-item name and excluded ChamSpy, ZKcamSPY, and unrelated retail strings. The index divides each cohort’s modeled children-at-home rate by the 47.42% average across Bark, Qustodio, Life360, FindMyKids, and FamiSafe; 100 means equal likelihood. Household attributes are modeled, not declared. Direct-web and non-Apple billing are under-covered, intent is unobserved, and co-membership does not establish product use. The panel skews slightly male and upper-middle income, so relative comparisons are more reliable than absolute levels.