ASO AgencyEducation · US iPhone listing
Does their ASO suck?
Listing creative score · first three captured iPhone screenshots
5/10Fine. A dangerous place to stop.
Duolingo's name says language lessons. Its third screenshot changes to chess before the language exercise has developed into a useful learning story. Breadth may be the strategy. It still spends attention that a language-seeking visitor came to use differently.
Gab’s verdict · 5/10Gabriel Machuret
One storefront, one language and a dated capture. This is an independent editorial audit, not a client case study.
Gab’s take · Five criteria. Two points each.
The vocabulary and chess exercises show genuine interaction. Keep that proof. The audience choice needs explaining so a language learner understands why the opening has changed subjects. The sequence needs a clearer audience choice and a completed lesson example. Lead with the intended learning job, enlarge the actual response and show feedback. Introduce other subjects deliberately rather than treating every new feature as an opening-frame obligation.
Free language choice is clear but menu-led.
Vocabulary and chess tasks demonstrate real interaction.
Small menu entries and captions weaken first-glance hierarchy.
Chess interrupts the language story before a lesson completes.
Short exercises are specific but the audience tradeoff remains unresolved.
0: not earned · 1: useful but incomplete · 2: clearly demonstrated. Judged on the dated opening creative; public metadata provides context. These points assess creative execution, not private conversion or ranking performance. Read the scoring criteria · See all ten verdict levels
Inspect the numbered original, read the problem, then compare the proposed fix. The publisher’s creative stays unchanged.
What the visitor sees → what I’d change
Look at the original: The course picker visually mixes languages and other learning subjects.
Why I’m flagging it: Languages and other subjects share a long course picker.
Open with one language exercise and clear access wording.
What the visitor sees → what I’d change
Look at the original: A short vocabulary task demonstrates the interaction instead of describing it abstractly.
Why I’m flagging it: A vocabulary choice is shown without the follow-up feedback.
Demonstrate the same question's response and correction.
What the visitor sees → what I’d change
Look at the original: The third frame introduces a different subject through a playable-looking lesson.
Why I’m flagging it: A different subject replaces the unfinished language journey.
Test a focused language sequence separately from the broader multi-subject treatment.
Proposed copy for discussion. These are not current listing fields or tested winners.
Observed listing
Languages, Math, Music & Chess
Proposed alternative
Practice a little every day
Name 26/30 · Subtitle 27/30 charactersThis candidate keeps the existing category name and tests a practice-led reason to return rather than listing subjects.
The tradeoff: It gives up explicit math, music and chess cues. Review the business importance of those audiences before using it; it is not a recommendation to remove them from every locale.
Read the sequence from top to bottom on mobile, left to right on desktop. These are message-layout sketches, not screens from Duolingo or tested results.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A verified course selection screen with the target language visible.
Why it earns the space: Make the first choice feel relevant to the intended visitor.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: An actual short exercise with readable answer choices.
Why it earns the space: Show the interaction and avoid unsupported fluency promises.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A current progress screen with truthful labels, supplied by the product team.
Why it earns the space: Complete the language-learning story before introducing other subjects.
The test: Does a language-led sequence work better for visitors arriving from a language-specific campaign? The sketch gives the designer a direction; the actual product and access conditions decide what can ship.
Bring the listing. I’ll help you decide what to keep, what to fix and what to test.
Observed competitor metadata
Learn Spanish, French & more
Babbel stays within language learning and names example languages in its subtitle.
The lesson: A focused competitor can spend more early space explaining one need. Duolingo should make its broader scope a choice rather than an accidental distraction.
Observed competitor metadata
Learn Spanish, French, English
Busuu also uses its subtitle to name language destinations.
The lesson: Specificity can help a shopper identify their goal, but titles alone do not establish teaching quality or conversion.
Observed competitor metadata
Learn Spanish, Japanese & More
Memrise remains language-led in both visible metadata fields.
The lesson: Duolingo has a genuine breadth distinction. The question is when to introduce it, not whether to hide it everywhere.
Intent candidates grounded in the listing—not fabricated search-volume or difficulty scores.
Visitor’s job: Compare practical language-learning options.
Evidence: The current name and second screenshot directly support this use case.
Decision: Keep as the primary route for language-intent traffic.
Visitor’s job: Prepare for a specific trip or language task.
Evidence: The first screenshot includes language choices; a selected review describes preparing for Paris.
Decision: Research a defined language/locale before using destination-led copy. One review is not demand data.
Visitor’s job: Explore other learning subjects.
Evidence: The subtitle and third screenshot document the broader offer.
Decision: Maintain a separate breadth-led proposition rather than assuming this audience wants language lessons.
The unseen keyword field may already cover some of these terms. Build an evidence-backed keyword shortlist before making a metadata change.
Three positive examples from the eight displayed reviews were selected for their distinct use cases: family learning, travel and multi-subject exploration. They illustrate motivations; they cannot estimate satisfaction or complaint frequency.
Sample: 3 selected accounts from 8 displayed reviews. Dates: 24 May 2024–8 June 2026. No sentiment percentage is calculated.
8 June 2026 · 5/5 stars
“Spanish and math”
The reviewer describes a child exploring several subjects and their own language practice.
What I’d investigate: Breadth has a plausible audience. A narrow creative should not be treated as universally better.
Listing review source · Review ID 1415852370624 May 2024 · 5/5 stars
“Paris France”
An older review ties French practice to an upcoming trip.
What I’d investigate: Travel is a concrete research angle, not proof that most visitors have that motivation.
Listing review source · Review ID 1130176560229 May 2026 · 5/5 stars
“learning Italian”
The reviewer discusses language study alongside trying math and music, and describes differences between access tiers.
What I’d investigate: Check entitlement wording whenever a concept promises unrestricted practice or specific premium experiences.
Listing review source · Review ID 14119961154A displayed review can be old, unusually positive or internally inconsistent with its star rating. These accounts suggest questions; they do not establish current defects or typical customer experience. Use the Review Research Desk to keep evidence and interpretation separate.
Languages and other subjects share a long course picker.
Deliverable: Open with one supported language exercise and clear access wording.
Creative brief and current-product checkA vocabulary choice is shown without the follow-up feedback.
Deliverable: Demonstrate the same question's supported response and correction.
Creative brief and current-product checkA different subject replaces the unfinished language journey.
Deliverable: Test a focused language sequence separately from the broader multi-subject treatment.
Creative brief and current-product checkDoes a language-led sequence work better for visitors arriving from a language-specific campaign?
Check Apple’s current product page optimization guidance and custom product page guidance before configuring a test. Write your experiment brief.
1–3: thumbs down · 4–6: thumbs up and down · 7–10: thumbs up
The basics need a serious rethink.
Too many obvious things have been left unfinished.
There is a useful product here. The listing needs to show it.
Some basics work, but the opening wastes attention and under-explains the benefit.
There is usable creative here, but too much of the sales argument is left to the visitor.
Real strengths, undermined by meaningful gaps in the opening story or execution.
A clear, useful demonstration with specific refinements still needed.
The main promise is clear and supported. Refinement matters more than reinvention.
Clear positioning, thoughtful choices and very few loose ends.
An unusually clear, convincing storefront worth learning from.
An editorial verdict on the captured storefront, not a measured ASO score or an assessment of an agency’s private work.
No private analytics, search-rank dataset or internal keyword field was supplied. Review quotations are short excerpts; explanations are our summaries. App names and screenshots belong to their respective owners. We are not affiliated with Duolingo. Read our editorial methodology.
Your app. Your priorities.
Send your listing, market and the problem you want to solve. I’ll explain the scope and fee before work starts. Your budget should buy decisions, not a longer PDF.
Build a relevant keyword shortlist, plan your screenshot sequence or get help with the creative decisions.
