It's a decent tool, but of course, guarantees nothing. I just did it for the hell of it, and I think it oversimplifies the GMAT/GPA section. It doesn't account for Quant %ile, nor does it ask what you studied in college - those are two things adcoms look at. Also, not all adcoms are going to "weight" each aspect of your profile and application like this - each adcom takes a holistic view and comes to its own conclusions.
For the record - my score was a ~55 when I rated my essays/application/recommendation/resume as "medium" and ~62 when I rated them as "strong"...I'm sure I fell somewhere in between.
The schools I applied to:
Kellogg - 72: Stretch. I got dinged, so I guess this was accurate.
Tuck - 68: Closer to Stretch than competitive. WL, so result TBD I guess.
Darden - 65: Close to being competitive than to being a stretch. WL - again, TBD.
Johnson - 65: Close to being competitive than to being a stretch. Accepted, awarded full-tuition fellowship.
Bottom line, this tool made me look like crap, but it's the Adcoms that decide if you'll get in, not a tool. Personally, I think this is just something
Aringo uses to drum up business because it says "If you worked with
Aringo, mark your essays/resume/recommendations as 'Strong'" which earns you a few more points on this assessment, giving the nervous applicant peace of mind, etc, etc.