Last updated October 2026
Most feedback rankings celebrate the best. This one looks at the other end: which active webcam performers on AdultWork have the weakest feedback from the clients who used them. Everything here is what clients reported and scored on the site, it is not paid for by anyone listed, and it is not a claim about anyone beyond what their own feedback says. Ratings are opinions, and every performer below also has positive feedback.
How we found them
We used AdultWork’s member search with the webcam option ticked, no country filter, and last login within the last two weeks. That returned 7,949 webcam profiles across 159 pages of results. The search cannot sort or filter by low rating, so each result’s rating summary (total, positive, neutral, negative and disputed) was used to shortlist. 4,982 of the 7,949 had at least 5 rated feedbacks, and 1,870 of those had at least one neutral or negative rating.
Every profile with at least 2 neutral or negative ratings (1,160 profiles) had its feedback page opened and its webcam tab read. 141 of those hide their feedback and could not be assessed, and 24 had no webcam feedback tab. That left 972 webcam performers with visible feedback and at least 5 webcam feedbacks. The five below were then checked on their own profile pages for last online date, webcam rates, visible feedback and the written webcam comments.
The rules
A performer qualifies if she has visible webcam feedback, at least 5 rated webcam feedbacks (positive, neutral and negative, with disputed ratings left out as AdultWork does), and a webcam last online date within the last 14 days of 16 October 2026. All five were last online between 7 and 15 October.
Low feedback volume does not mean bad, so the ranking is not by volume. It is by the Wilson lower bound (95%) of the neutral-plus-negative share, a standard method that stops a small sample from ranking too high or too low. A profile only ranks as poorly rated when its share of neutral and negative feedback is high even after allowing for a small sample. Ties are broken by the number of negative ratings. We read the written comments of every candidate, and skipped profiles whose weaker ratings were not genuine webcam complaints from at least two different members, for example a single member leaving repeated ratings, or ratings with no written reason.
The 5 worst-rated active webcam performers
1. LaciShauer
11 webcam feedbacks (7 positive, 2 neutral, 2 negative) | 63.6% positive | last online 15 October 2026 | Latvia | webcam rate: private 1.80 credits/min, group 1.80 credits/min, free preview offered
Seven of the 11 are positive and mostly short, describing a great session or a very sexy performer. The weaker ratings are about different things. One neutral rating says that more than nine minutes in, the member was still seeing only what was visible for free and felt he had wasted money. One negative says there was a lot of teasing but nothing shown. The other neutral is a plain ‘was ok’, and the most recent negative (15 October 2026) has no written comment. The other three weaker ratings date from March, July and August 2026.
2. WenDacunto
17 webcam feedbacks (12 positive, 3 neutral, 2 negative) | 70.6% positive | last online 15 October 2026 | Russia | webcam rate: private 2.16 credits/min, group 1.80 credits/min, free preview offered
Twelve of the 17 are positive, with short comments such as great fun and a sensational body. The latest positive is dated 10 October 2026. The three neutral ratings are all about clothing: members said she would not take her underwear off, in private or in the free preview. Two of those three come from the same member on the same day. The two negative ratings say she does not interact, and one member also reported that she appeared to be on camera with another service during his private session.
3. Lola-Bunny-XO
15 webcam feedbacks (11 positive, 1 neutral, 3 negative) | 73.3% positive | last online 7 October 2026 | United Kingdom | webcam rate: private 2.40 credits/min, group 1.80 credits/min, free preview offered
Eleven of the 15 are positive. Clients describe her as pretty, friendly and good to chat with, and all of her feedback is dated since August 2026. The one neutral rating says the session was chat only. The three negative ratings, all from September 2026, say members felt they had wasted money. One reports being asked for a tip to show more and then for more to undress further, one says she showed only cleavage, and one simply advises others not to waste their money.
4. MargaritaBlond
6 webcam feedbacks (4 positive, 0 neutral, 2 negative) | 66.7% positive | last online 15 October 2026 | Romania | webcam rate: private 3.59 credits/min, group 2.39 credits/min, free preview offered
This is the thinnest evidence of the five, with only six webcam feedbacks. Four are positive and brief, for example calling her very beautiful and smart. Both negative ratings are about pacing. One, from 22 September 2026, says it took a long time to get started and that tips were then requested to remove any clothing. The other, from 13 May 2025, says she takes too long to get going.
5. SolangeFerer
6 webcam feedbacks (4 positive, 1 neutral, 1 negative) | 66.7% positive | last online 12 October 2026 | Hungary | webcam rate: private 1.80 credits/min, group 1.80 credits/min, free preview offered
This is also a thin sample, with only six webcam feedbacks. Four are positive and very short, and the latest is dated 24 July 2026. The one neutral rating (26 October 2025) says she looked lovely but did not interact. The one negative rating (10 October 2025) calls the session a waste of time with nothing happening. Both weaker ratings are about a year old.
Caveats
This is the worst among the 7,949 webcam profiles we scanned (those with a login in the last two weeks and the webcam option ticked), not provably every profile on the site. Profiles that hide their feedback, 141 of the 1,160 we opened, could not be assessed at all.
Ratings are client-reported opinions on a positive, neutral or negative scale, and the themes above are what clients wrote, not established facts about the performers. Ranks 4 and 5 rest on only 6 feedbacks each, and several of the five have samples of just 6 to 17 webcam feedbacks, so one or two more ratings would move their rank. Disputed ratings are excluded from the counts, as the site does.
For feedback lists over 100 entries the site only shows the 100 most recent, but the totals we used are the site’s own. The last login filter is a login date, and the webcam last online date on each profile was used for the final check. Counts, rates and last online times were read on 16 October 2026 and change. Webcam rates are shown in AdultWork credits per minute as displayed, with no conversion to pounds, and profile links need an AdultWork login.
Two profiles that ranked higher on the raw counts were skipped after reading their comments: one because all of its negative ratings came from a single member, and one because its negative and neutral ratings had no written webcam complaint.