ASO AgencyFood & delivery · US iPhone listing
Does their ASO suck?
Listing creative score · first three captured iPhone screenshots
Uber Eats opens like a supermarket shelf has fallen onto the design file. The second frame adds more range. The useful nearby restaurant view arrives third. A hungry visitor should not need a category tour first.
Gab’s verdict · 3/10Gabriel 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 local options show a recognisable ordering product. Keep that. The retail collage and range message use the strongest positions before the visitor gets a useful food decision. Lead with one local food decision, make availability and relevant costs readable, then show tracking. Retail expansion can move later. A burger floating beside headphones is not a practical reason to install.
The food and retail ordering context provides a relevant convenience proposition, but the breadth-led collage weakens the specific local-food benefit.
Local options appear only after a connected collage.
Tilted devices and dense product imagery reduce focus.
Two opening frames repeat breadth before a useful food decision.
Brand and assortment do not establish local availability or an advantage.
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: A dense home view combines several delivery categories and a grocery-focused message.
Why I’m flagging it: Retail, groceries and restaurant cues compete in one dense view.
Lead with a focused order scenario for the intended audience.
What the visitor sees → what I’d change
Look at the original: The second image extends the phone edge and product collage from the opening.
Why I’m flagging it: The connected collage spends another frame saying almost anything.
Replace it with a readable menu or checkout decision from the same example.
What the visitor sees → what I’d change
Look at the original: The interface shows nearby options and several decision cues before ordering.
Why I’m flagging it: Local cues and prices finally support an actual choice.
Move this forward and enlarge the relevant availability, cost and timing qualifications.
Proposed copy for discussion. These are not current listing fields or tested winners.
Observed listing
Fresh grocery delivery & more
Proposed alternative
Order meals and everyday needs
Name 27/30 · Subtitle 30/30 charactersKeep the observed descriptive name and propose a task-led subtitle that spans meals and everyday items without claiming universal selection, speed or price.
The tradeoff: The alternative removes the explicit fresh-grocery emphasis. That may be important to acquisition strategy, so compare the actual restaurant/grocery/retail intent mix before making the change.
Read the sequence from top to bottom on mobile, left to right on desktop. These are message-layout sketches, not screens from Uber Eats or tested results.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A current location-aware restaurant list with accurate illustrative decision information.
Why it earns the space: Start with a recognisable meal-selection job.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A verified grocery/retail view for the same example area, with availability context.
Why it earns the space: Explain breadth as an additional use case rather than a universal promise.
Proposed headline
Put this in the frame: A verified checkout review with delivery address, applicable charges and key conditions.
Why it earns the space: Show an informed first transaction; do not invent cancellation rights or a fee guarantee.
The test: Does a simpler restaurant-first opening pair work better than the current connected assortment montage? 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
Food Delivery, Grocery, Retail
DoorDash explicitly lists food, grocery and retail delivery in its metadata.
The lesson: Breadth is common in this market; showing a clear first transaction can be more useful than claiming the widest range.
Observed competitor metadata
Restaurant Takeout & Grocery
Grubhub centres food delivery with restaurant takeout and grocery language.
The lesson: Restaurant intent and grocery intent overlap, but they can require different opening examples.
Observed competitor metadata
Shop Grocery Delivery Services
Instacart puts groceries first and reinforces delivery services.
The lesson: A grocery-led visitor should see the right selection journey rather than a restaurant story with a grocery label added.
Intent candidates grounded in the listing—not fabricated search-volume or difficulty scores.
Visitor’s job: Find a nearby meal and understand the ordering options.
Evidence: Restaurant browsing is visible in frame three and food remains in the observed name.
Decision: Research local meal intent and the information needed before ordering; never infer universal delivery coverage.
Visitor’s job: Refill household food without a store visit.
Evidence: The subtitle and first-frame banner emphasise groceries.
Decision: Validate local assortment and the grocery workflow before giving this intent a dedicated page.
Visitor’s job: Get an item from a nearby participating store.
Evidence: The opening includes retail logos, convenience navigation and non-food products.
Decision: Keep this separate from restaurant assumptions; verify availability and applicable transaction conditions.
The unseen keyword field may already cover some of these terms. Build an evidence-backed keyword shortlist before making a metadata change.
These three 2024–2025 complaints were chosen for address, rating/text mismatch and retail-versus-restaurant expectations. They deliberately overrepresent problems and do not establish prevalence, current policies or the truth of disputed charges.
Sample: 3 selected accounts from 8 displayed reviews. Dates: 23 March 2024–24 February 2025. No sentiment percentage is calculated.
24 February 2025 · 5/5 stars
“Work address”
A February 2025 reviewer described ordering to the wrong address and disputing a cancellation charge.
What I’d investigate: Research address confirmation and current pre-order comprehension; this account does not establish the platform’s present policy or resolve the dispute.
Listing review source · Review ID 123510528788 April 2024 · 5/5 stars
“5 stars”
An April 2024 reviewer explicitly said the five-star rating was intended to increase visibility of a complaint.
What I’d investigate: Code the text separately from the star value. Do not classify this as a satisfied customer or calculate sentiment from stars alone.
Listing review source · Review ID 1113377381723 March 2024 · 5/5 stars
“a store, not a restaurant”
A March 2024 reviewer expected a retail order to work differently from a prepared-food order.
What I’d investigate: Examine whether breadth-led acquisition explains the correct transaction context, without claiming that all retail and restaurant policies differ in a particular way.
Listing review source · Review ID 11077826465A 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.
Retail, groceries and restaurant cues compete in one dense view.
Deliverable: Lead with a focused supported order scenario for the intended audience.
Creative brief and current-product checkThe connected collage spends another frame saying almost anything.
Deliverable: Replace it with a readable menu or checkout decision from the same example.
Creative brief and current-product checkLocal cues and prices finally support an actual choice.
Deliverable: Move this forward and enlarge the relevant availability, cost and timing qualifications.
Creative brief and current-product checkDoes a simpler restaurant-first opening pair work better than the current connected assortment montage?
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 Uber Eats. 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.
