Anima AI Boyfriend, and the Name on the Listing

Search the App Store for anima ai boyfriend and no app called Anima comes back. Twenty-one results, not one of them carrying the name.

The direct answer, because that's the confusing part. The Anima AI boyfriend product does exist on iOS, it's simply filed under a different title, and the link between the two is provable rather than assumed. The listing is called AI Boyfriend Chat: iBoy, it is published by LABANE CORP. LTD, and the developer website declared on that listing is boyfriend.myanima.ai, which is the exact domain holding the top web result for the search. Its bundle identifier reads com.apperry.aibf. On Android the naming is straightforward and the app is called Anima: My Virtual AI Boyfriend, sitting above a million installs. Three products ship from that one developer account, and one of the three carries an age rating that does not match its siblings.

Everything below came off Apple's search and lookup endpoints, Google Play listings, the company's own domains and Mozilla Foundation's product review, all loaded on 29 July 2026.

What You Are Actually Installing On iOS

The store page is the document that settles this, so start there.

AI Boyfriend Chat: iBoy carries track ID 1565524138. Seller of record is LABANE CORP. LTD, the copyright line at the bottom of the page reads Labane Corp Ltd 2026, and the developer website link points at boyfriend.myanima.ai. Released 4 May 2021, last updated 1 July 2026, version 2.61.11, 150.4 megabytes, English only, minimum iOS 16.6. It's got 4,895 ratings at a 4.5 average, files under Entertainment with Health and Fitness as its secondary genre, and its store description positions it as a companion for support and self-discovery rather than as a romance product.

Its Apple content descriptors run to seven entries. Infrequent or mild realistic violence, horror and fear themes, sexual content and nudity, cartoon or fantasy violence, profanity or crude humour, mature or suggestive themes, and alcohol, tobacco or drug references. Seven descriptors is a lot for a text chat app, and it's the most candid disclosure on the whole listing.

One more thing on that account. Apple's developer page for LABANE CORP. LTD lists exactly two apps, iBoy and a second product called Matcha, which has 113 ratings. A brand with a million Android installs behind it runs a two-app shelf on the other store. I'd read that as an iOS presence that exists because it has to, rather than one anybody is investing in, though that's my inference and not something the store tells you.

Three Apps, One Developer, One Rating That Stands Out

On Google Play the family is visible in a way it isn't on Apple, because all three ship under names you can connect.

Play listings read on 2026-07-29, US storefront, English.

The boyfriend package and the girlfriend package are the same string with two words swapped, which tells you what you'd expect about how much of each product is bespoke. The purchase ranges are identical to the cent across all three. None of them carries ads.

The row that stops me is the first one. Anima: AI Friend Virtual Chat is rated Everyone, on a listing selling items up to two hundred dollars, from the same developer whose two other titles in the same family are rated Mature 17+. I'm not going to argue that the friend product and the boyfriend product contain identical content, because I've no way to know that and neither does anyone writing about it. What I can say is that Play's rating comes out of a questionnaire the developer fills in, the same as Apple's, and a family of three apps sharing a purchase ladder and a codebase lineage that splits across the widest possible gap in the rating scale is at minimum a question worth asking. The mechanics of how these ratings get set, and why none of the three layers verifies anybody, are worked through in the age rating audit.

The Price Ladder Has Two Of Almost Everything

Apple publishes the individual in-app purchase names and prices on the store page, and this one's odd enough to be worth printing in full.

Read off apps.apple.com on 2026-07-29.

Two products named Monthly Premium at different prices. Two named Yearly Premium at different prices. A separate Premium - Monthly and a separate Premium - Weekly. That's either legacy pricing that never got retired, or live price testing where what you see depends on which cohort you land in, and I can't tell you which from outside. Both are normal enough in mobile. The consequence for you is the same either way, which is that the price somebody else quotes you for this app isn't necessarily the price you will be shown.

Run the annual arithmetic and the spread gets wide. Weekly at $9.99 comes to $519.48 across a year. The $19.99 monthly lands at $239.88. The cheaper yearly is $39.99, which is roughly seven and a half percent of the weekly route. Same product, same store page, a thirteen-fold gap between the top and bottom of the ladder depending on which button you press first. The weekly-billing pattern across this whole category, and why it keeps winning, is broken down in what free tiers hold back.

Two Sites, One Build

This one I checked twice because I didn't quite believe the first result.

Anima runs myanima.ai for the friend and girlfriend side and boyfriend.myanima.ai for the boyfriend side. They are presented as different products with different landing pages. Fetch both and they serve the same compiled front end. Identical webpack chunk filename, identical stylesheet hash, the same Google Tag Manager container ID, and the same AppsFlyer attribution script. What differs between the two responses is the page title and the favicon filename, one pointing at anima-favicon.ico and the other at aibf-favicon.ico.

So the boyfriend site is not a separate product with its own build. It's the same deployment answering on a second hostname. Which is a perfectly reasonable engineering decision and I would probably do the same thing, honestly, but it does mean any comparison between the Anima girlfriend experience and the Anima boyfriend experience is a comparison of one thing against itself. The same finding on the app side, with the package identifiers, sits in the free boyfriend tier breakdown.

The Legal Shelf That Will Not Load

Anima publishes a lot of policy. Its sitemap lists fifteen separate legal documents, covering terms, privacy, cookies, subscription terms, cancellation, a withdrawal form, an underage policy, content removal, DMCA, complaints, chargeback fraud mitigation and an anti-slavery policy. As a paper shelf that is more than most of this category bothers with.

Here's the problem. Every one of those routes is rendered client side, and the HTML that comes back holds no policy text at all. The privacy policy URL that the Google Play listing itself declares, boyfriend.myanima.ai/legal/privacy, returned nineteen characters of visible text to me, and those nineteen characters were the page title.

That isn't a conspiracy. It's a Next.js app that ships its content in JavaScript, and in a normal browser the pages presumably render fine. But a policy that only exists after JavaScript executes is a policy that cannot be archived cleanly, cannot be diffed against last month's version, and cannot be read by anything automated. In a category where the terms are the only real description of what happens to your conversation logs, I think that matters more than it would on a shoe shop.

I couldn't read Anima's terms this session, so nothing in this article characterises them. That's a hole and I'd rather leave it open than paraphrase a document I didn't load.

The Only Independent Audit Of It Is From 2024

Mozilla Foundation reviewed this exact app for its Privacy Not Included guide. The review is dated 7 February 2024, notes eight hours of research, and lands on the warning label rather than a pass. It ranks on page one right now for the search, which is how most people who look this up will meet it.

Its findings, as published. Mozilla couldn't determine whether the app used encryption. It reported that the app had no password requirements at all. It ran a tracker detection test and logged 257 tracking signals within five minutes of opening the app, with traffic going to Facebook and to Sentry. It flagged a mismatch between the privacy policy and the terms on the minimum age, with the policy stating over seventeen and the terms describing parental agreement for anyone under seventeen. And it quoted the policy's own list of service providers, which named Apple, Google and Facebook alongside Wasabi for image storage, Azure Computer Vision for image processing, Amplitude and RevenueCat for analytics, BugSnag and Sentry for support, and AppsFlyer, Firebase Analytics and Apple Search Ads Attribution for marketing measurement.

Two and a half years is a long time in this market, and I wouldn't present any of that as a current description of the product. Apps get rewritten. Policies get replaced.

What I can say is that one thread from it is still visibly true, because I checked. The AppsFlyer attribution script named in that 2024 provider list is still being loaded by both Anima domains today. And one thread has clearly changed, because the company Mozilla named on that review was Anima AI Ltd, while the seller of record on both stores today reads LABANE CORP. Limited. Somewhere between February 2024 and now, the name attached to this product moved. Nothing on either listing tells you that happened, and the review that most people will read has the old name on it.

Questions

Is Anima AI boyfriend free? It's free to download on both stores, which is true of every app in this category and carries no information at all. Beyond that the purchase ladder above is the answer, and Mozilla's 2024 review described the romantic tier as roughly ten dollars a month at the time, which doesn't match anything on the current Apple price list.

Is it the same as iGirl? Same developer, same purchase range, mirrored package identifiers, same web build behind both marketing sites. Draw your own conclusion, but there's very little to compare.

Is it safe? The only independent assessment is Mozilla's and it's two and a half years old. The current terms wouldn't load for me. I'm not going to answer a safety question with material that stale, and I'd be suspicious of any page that does.

Does it remember me? There's no published context or memory number for this product, which puts it with almost everything else on the shelf. The handful of platforms that do publish a figure are compared in the roleplay memory guide.

Why is the iOS app called something else? Nothing on the listing explains it. The provable part is the developer website field, the bundle identifier and the copyright line, which all point back to the same company and domain.

What I Would Check First

Open the developer website field on whichever store you are in before you open anything else. On this listing it is the single field that resolves the whole naming question, and it takes about four seconds.

Then look at the in-app purchase list rather than the headline price, because on this app the headline price isn't stable and the list is where the weekly tier hides. A weekly subscription is the most expensive way to buy anything in this category and it's almost never the option presented first.

And treat the age rating as information about the developer's own view of their product, not as a control. A family of three apps that share a purchase ladder and split across Everyone and Mature 17+ has told you something about how that questionnaire gets answered. The wider version of that pattern is in the companion apps store audit, and the pricing and policy picture for the whole category sits in the main AI girlfriend guide.