The Schumann App Scorecard

The ranking

Eight consumer readers on one scale. Research networks (HeartMath), human editorial (Disclosure News) and raw feeds (Tomsk, Cumiana) sit in their own category below — they're a different job, not a worse app.

Our earlier scorecard never weighed whether the reading itself is real — so a tracker whose live numbers are generated in your browser could sit mid-table. We fixed that: read fidelity is now the heaviest criterion, every deduction is backed by the tool's own published words or code, and each receipt links to an archived copy. If we got a number wrong, tell us and we'll correct it in public.

Seven things that decide whether a tracker is actually useful — and whether the reading it shows you is real. Tap any card below for the detail.

A different category

Research infrastructure and human editorial aren't consumer readers — scoring them on app criteria would be the same unfairness we're correcting. Listed here on their own terms.

• Nobody is selling your mood. No sign-up, no ads, no tracking — what you feel stays on your phone. Free, always.
• It won't cry wolf. Six stations checked at once — not one sensor guessing — so a false "storm" gets caught before it reaches you.
• One tap and it's on your phone. Installs straight from the browser — no App Store, no download, works offline. In your language.
• Grounded in real science. Actual geophysics and a method you can read in full — not HAARP, "scalar weapons" or a "soul frequency" upsell like some others sell.

We don't win every line. MeteoAgent speaks fourteen languages to our eight, and EarthBeat's phone widgets are slicker than ours. We printed it anyway — a scoreboard that only ever flatters itself isn't worth reading.