ThisRomance.com review

The website promises easy conversations and meaningful connections, but our test showed inconsistencies. Registration is simple, with the option to sign up via Google, followed by a quiz to set intentions and profile info. Browsing profiles is straightforward, yet suspicious activity appeared quickly: our empty test profile received visitors within minutes. While we found no proof of fictional profiles, this behavior raises doubts about authenticity.

Navigation is smooth, and the design is modern enough, but the reliance on “Top Users”, who provide free content that paying members must unlock, feels unconventional. Quick replies during testing also seemed questionable, suggesting the system is designed to keep users engaged rather than facilitate genuine meetings. Overall, usability is fine, but the pros and cons lean negative due to authenticity concerns and expensive interactions.

ThisRomance.com offers standard communication tools: a newsfeed with member posts, chat messaging, digital “mail,” and search filters by country, age, and gender. The “People” feature displays random profiles to swipe through, while credits are required to unlock content. The Top User system is unusual: free members are required to post content, which paying users must spend credits to view. This structure encourages constant spending and raises questions about whether genuine connections are intended.

Former online reviews are mostly negative, with claims of fake profiles and suspicions of a rip-off. While we cannot confirm these accusations, our own experience showed suspiciously fast attention to a blank profile and limited geographic search options, making real‑life meetings unlikely. While it was possible to search profiles from different countries, there was no filter option to search for specific locations within a country.

Sign‑up is free, and new users receive 20 credits, but further interaction requires purchasing packages. In our test, only one package was available: 65 credits for $9.99 (discounted, usually $32). Credits are deducted per minute in chat (2 credits per minute), while sending stickers costs 5 credits, photos 10 credits, audio 10 credits, and videos 50 credits. Users must also pay when they receive videos, credits are charged as soon as they click on them. This pricing makes even short conversations expensive, and accidental clicks on content can immediately consume large portions of a package.

The Top User system further increases costs, as their content is designed to push new users into spending credits quickly. There are no subscriptions, only one‑time payments, but the lack of package variety and the high rates make the platform costly compared to competitors. Many former members describe the service as a rip‑off, and while we found no evidence of a scam, the pricing model is a major negative factor in this evaluation.

Registration is simple, and email verification is not strictly enforced, which lowers security standards. The privacy policy is detailed and includes a Safety Center with educational resources for safe interactions. While this is positive, enforcement is weak, as verification measures are minimal. A major concern is the T&C clause allowing the operator to copy and reuse user content, including names and photos, across other platforms. Since the company operates multiple dating sites, this raises the risk that personal information may be shared elsewhere.

Former users highlight transparency issues and dissatisfaction with authenticity. While the platform provides resources for safety, the lack of strict verification and broad content rights undermine trust. The overall experience is negative, even though the service appears structurally legit.

The platform’s standout feature is the Top User system, where free members provide content that paying users must unlock. This design ensures a steady flow of material but also pushes new users into spending credits quickly. Unlike typical dating sites, there is little evidence that real‑life meetings are intended. Other features include the “mail” function and the “People” swipe tool, but neither adds significant value beyond standard chat. The international scope is limited by the inability to search within specific regions, making genuine connections harder.

While we found no proof of fictional profiles, the system feels suspicious and primarily designed to generate revenue. Numerous negative reviews describe the service as expensive and disappointing, with some even calling it a scam. The pros and cons clearly show that risks outweigh potential benefits.