Monkey - make new friends

Analysis by AppCompare

Monkey makes the most sense to me when I want a conversation to begin with a real-time introduction instead of a profile, a feed, or a carefully written opener. It is a social app for meeting people through live video, so its appeal is immediacy rather than predictable results. I can see the attraction if you enjoy spontaneous chats, but the same format is a poor fit if you want to ease into contact through text or choose potential friends in detail.

Developed by Monkey Group, Monkey is free to download and carries a Mature 17+ age rating. It has a 3.8 average from around 73,000 ratings and has passed 10 million installs. That mix suggests plenty of people have tried it, while the middling average is a reminder that an app based on encounters with strangers can feel very different from one person to the next.

What the current version is built for

The current version, 7.68.0, keeps the focus on quick video encounters. I would think of it less as a conventional social network and more as a place to dip into brief, face-to-face introductions. That distinction matters: if you want to maintain an established circle, share updates, or coordinate plans, a messaging app is more practical. If you are curious about meeting someone new without composing an opening message, Monkey’s video-first approach has a clear purpose.

My main advice is to open it with a small, realistic goal. Try a few conversations, see whether the pace suits you, and leave if you are not in the mood to be on camera. Treating every connection as the start of a lasting friendship would set the bar too high; a better expectation is that some chats will be brief, some may be awkward, and an occasional one might turn into a conversation worth continuing.

The app’s biggest strength is also its main trade-off: meeting people feels immediate, but you have less control over the quality of each first interaction than you would in a carefully curated community. A video call gives you more social context than a blank profile or a one-line message, yet it can also make the experience feel exposed. People who prefer to warm up through text may find that jump uncomfortable.

Where it fits among social apps

Compared with group-chat platforms, Monkey is more about chance encounters than joining a community with a shared topic. Compared with text-first friend-making apps, it puts the conversation itself ahead of the profile-building stage. That is useful if written introductions feel stiff to you, but it is a weaker fit if you want time to assess someone before deciding whether to engage.

It is also different from a standard video-calling tool. Those are usually best when you already know whom you are calling; Monkey is intended for discovering new people. I would not use it as a replacement for messaging friends or for a planned call with someone I trust. Its value is in the possibility of an unexpected conversation, not in reliability as a communication utility.

Worth Reading Before You Choose

---

EA SPORTS FC Mobile 26 Is a Bigger Football Game, but It Takes Time

Flipboard Shows What News Apps Must Do Beyond the Feed

Switching to Android Auto Means Rethinking Your Driving Routine

Google Calendar Makes a Crowded Week Easier to Manage

Ludo King Makes the Most of the Minutes Between Plans

Baby Panda World Brings Quick Play to Modern Phones, but Its Game Library Feels Busy

---

What the version history can—and cannot—tell you

The app was released on April 2, 2018, and its current version is 7.68.0. That span and version progression show that Monkey has continued to receive versions over time, but a version number alone does not tell me which particular functions changed or whether a specific issue has been fixed. I would avoid assuming that an update means a major redesign or a new feature unless the app itself explains what changed.

For someone who already uses Monkey, the practical point is to check the version installed on their device and read the update notes before expecting a different experience. Updating can keep an app current, but it does not remove the basic uncertainty of a stranger-based video format. The social atmosphere still depends on the people you encounter, your connection, and whether you feel comfortable taking part.

For a new user, the version number is less important than the core choice: do you want to meet strangers through live video? If yes, the current release gives you the app’s intended format. If you mainly want a polished profile, detailed discovery controls, or conversations you can review at your own pace, those priorities point toward a different kind of social service.

A realistic way to try it

Imagine you have a free half hour and feel like talking to someone outside your usual circle. Monkey may suit that moment better than opening a large group chat and waiting for a conversation to develop. I would start when I have enough privacy to speak comfortably, use a stable connection, and keep the first session short. That makes it easier to decide whether the pace and on-camera interaction feel enjoyable rather than turning the app into an obligation.

A useful habit is to decide your boundaries before starting: what personal details you are comfortable sharing, how long you are willing to chat, and what you will do if a conversation feels wrong. This is not a special feature claim; it is sensible preparation for any app that connects you with people you do not already know. You can end an interaction rather than trying to rescue an uncomfortable exchange.

I would also avoid using the app in situations where you cannot give a conversation your attention, such as while commuting or in a shared space where other people may appear on camera. Video is more revealing than text, and a casual call can expose surroundings as well as your face. Being deliberate about where you use it makes the experience more comfortable and helps protect your privacy.

What may frustrate new and returning users

The main friction is inherent in spontaneous social discovery: not every person will be a match, and a run of uninteresting conversations can make the app feel less rewarding. That does not necessarily mean the app is broken; it may simply mean the format is inconsistent by nature. Still, anyone who wants predictable, topic-focused conversations should consider a moderated interest group or a text-based community instead.

Live video also raises the stakes of a first impression. People who are shy, tired, or not ready to appear on camera may feel pressure to perform socially before they have built any rapport. If that sounds familiar, it may help to try Monkey only when you genuinely feel like talking, rather than using it to cure boredom every time. If you prefer to think before responding, a messaging-first service is likely to feel kinder.

Another limitation is that a brief video meeting does not automatically create a meaningful friendship. A good first chat may still go nowhere, while a promising connection takes effort beyond the initial encounter. I would treat Monkey as a way to open a door, not as a guarantee that the other person shares your interests or wants the same kind of ongoing contact.

Costs, age suitability, and sensible boundaries

The app is free to download, with in-app purchases listed from $0.99 to $40.99 per item. I would begin with the free experience and only consider spending after understanding exactly what a purchase does and whether it addresses a real need for me. The presence of optional purchases does not mean they are necessary to try the basic social concept, and I would set a spending limit before making any in-app decision.

The Mature 17+ rating is an important signal for families and younger users. I would not treat the app as appropriate for children simply because its purpose is socializing. Parents should discuss the reality of live conversations with strangers and use the age guidance when deciding whether it belongs on a teenager’s device. Anyone who is uncomfortable with unscripted contact should feel no pressure to try it.

Monkey has received around 18,000 written reviews, which gives prospective users a substantial range of other opinions to consider alongside its average rating. I would read recent comments with care and look for recurring themes relevant to my own priorities, rather than expecting any one review to predict exactly how my conversations will go. Social apps can feel very different depending on timing and personal comfort.

Who I would recommend it to

I would recommend giving Monkey a try if you are an adult who enjoys spontaneous conversation, is comfortable appearing on video, and sees meeting new people as an open-ended activity rather than a guaranteed result. It may also suit someone who finds it easier to connect through voice and facial expressions than through carefully written introductions. Go in with boundaries, and judge it by whether the format itself works for you.

I would skip it if you want a highly controlled way to find people with specific interests, prefer to remain off camera, or are seeking a dependable tool for keeping in touch with existing friends. A community organized around a hobby can be better for shared topics; a conventional messenger is better for known contacts; a text-first service is better if you need time before speaking. Those alternatives are not necessarily superior overall—they simply serve different social needs.

For me, Monkey’s clearest appeal is the chance to start a conversation without building a whole online persona first. Its clearest weakness is that spontaneity cuts both ways: it can produce an unexpectedly engaging chat, but it can also mean awkward or forgettable encounters. I would use it as an occasional social experiment, not as my only route to friendship.

As Monkey continues from its current release, I would watch for clear explanations of changes that affect how people meet and manage conversations, rather than assuming that a higher version number means a better social experience. What matters most is whether the app makes its live format comfortable and useful for the people choosing it. If you are curious and meet the age guidance, start modestly, keep personal boundaries in mind, and decide from your own experience whether the video-first approach is worth returning to.

Making a first session feel less awkward

One small practical adjustment is to choose a time when you are alert rather than squeezing a call into a few spare minutes while distracted. If you are trying the app after a long day, a short session can still tell you whether the format suits you, but it may not be a fair test of how much you enjoy meeting people when you have more energy. I would also keep a couple of easy topics in mind—music, a recent film, or what someone enjoys doing in their free time—so the first silence does not feel like a test you have failed.

That preparation should stay light. Overplanning can make an unscripted chat feel like an interview, which defeats the point of choosing video over a polished written introduction. I would use a simple opener, listen for a detail the other person seems interested in, and let the conversation end naturally if there is no shared thread. The ability to stop without turning every exchange into a performance is part of using this kind of social app comfortably.

Privacy and the practical limits of live contact

Before appearing on camera, I would check what is visible behind me and avoid showing identifying details such as documents, screens, or a precise location. This is a useful habit even for a brief conversation: the social setting may feel casual, but a stranger is still someone I have not chosen through an established relationship. I would also avoid moving a conversation into sharing personal contact details simply because a first chat went well; trust is better built gradually.

If a connection is interrupted or the conversation is not engaging, I would not spend time trying to force it into a successful meeting. Live discovery is inherently dependent on timing and mutual interest, and a quick exit can be a sensible outcome rather than a failure. If what you really want is a dependable conversation with a particular person, arranging a call through a familiar messaging service is the more suitable workflow.

For someone deciding whether to install it, the key question is not whether every encounter will be good; no stranger-matching format can promise that. It is whether the possibility of an immediate, face-to-face introduction is worth the exposure and unpredictability for you. If that sounds appealing, start with a brief trial and keep your expectations modest. If it sounds tiring, a text-first community or interest-based group will probably offer a more comfortable route to new connections.