It organizes in-person events like speed dating, happy hours, and game nights for its members to help accelerate the search for “the one,” and it works — studies have shown it’s one of the top two sites to produce marriages.(Match.com’s user base is slightly older, too, which may indicate more people who are ready to settle down.) However, Match lacks the robust matching algorithm of Ok Cupid — it came in fourth place for good matches in our testing — and isn’t as streamlined as Tinder or Bumble. We also tested three other sites: e Harmony, Plenty of Fish, and Zoosk.Not into the idea of creating a full-blown dating profile? As opposed to a matching algorithm that evaluates your answers to various questions, Tinder is all about first impressions — your photos are the most prominent part of your profile.And it’s easy to get started: upload a few snaps from your Facebook profile, add an optional bio, and start swiping through other users in your area.At per month it’s the most expensive option out there, but had the highest number of blank profiles.Meanwhile, Plenty of Fish lives up to its name — we received twice as many messages compared to Ok Cupid.Matchmaker and online dating expert Carmelia Ray points out that “as a user, you want to have the most selection and options.When you’re putting in your search criteria, and it’s coming back ‘no matches found,’ that’s a bummer.” To find the most popular options, we turned to Alexa, a web-traffic analytics company.
This is the real heart of online dating (anyone could sift through profiles on their own) and some sites and apps do it better than others.
Since our tester was a straight woman, her experience with online dating is weighted more toward receiving messages than sending messages.
(According to a study from Ok Cupid, the majority of women don’t send the first message in online dating conversations — but they get great results when they do.) To keep our judgments as objective as possible, we used a rubric to categorize each message: Unfortunately — but perhaps not all that surprisingly — the majority of the messages we received on traditional dating sites were mediocre or downright bad. To send someone a message, both users have to indicate they’re interested by “swiping right” on their profile.
Even though we received fewer messages compared to other sites, we rated 40 percent “good” — the most out of the seven sites we tested.
That’s in large part because only mutual matches can message each other: both parties have to “swipe right” before they can say hello, which cuts way down on spam.