Mi File Manager is a free, secure tool that helps you find file faster, manag…
Xiaomi Inc.Some warnings 1 confirmed warning. Checked: 400 reviews, the Android app’s code and the store listing.
From our automated analysis, 25 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version V1-210601 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-25 .
The store currently lists version V1-210601, updated 2024-05-13.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Mi File Manager is a free, secure tool that helps you find file faster, manage files easily, and share them offline with others. It supports tons of cool features: quick search, moving, deleting, opening, and sharing files, as well as renaming, unzipping, and copy-paste. Mi File Manager also recognizes multiple file formats, including music, videos, images, documents, APKs, and zip-files. We update our app regularly to bring you the best experience. With Mi File Manager’s crisp and clear UI, file management becomes easier than ever before!
Key features
Recent: View the files you worked with recently without looking for them.
Categories: Files are organized into categories by their formats.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Findings that met the published evidence standard.
Aggressive ad load: raised by 9 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 44 reviews we read)
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
Specific evidence of a useful property, within the stated scope.
The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
The app requests QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES, which lets the app enumerate every other app installed on the device.
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app ships session-recording or a wide tracking stack, holds permissions that read personal data, or is reported by users to sell, leak or over-collect it. The evidence line says which of those was observed.
Package artefact
Appworthy
sha256:c8575253b756f3426a2b6363c4647b691f4bc7d53820c8786bf8afa75e6f887eSells a randomised reward ("You will lose your reward") and states no drop rates or odds anywhere in the app's own text
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app sells randomised rewards — crates, chests, packs, pulls — and states no drop rates or odds anywhere in its own text, so what the money buys is unknowable before paying.
Package artefact
sha256:c8575253b756f3426a2b6363c4647b691f4bc7d53820c8786bf8afa75e6f887eThe app's own text says: "File Manager is a system app that allows you to view and manage files on your device. Remove anyway?"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own screens offer a way past sign-up — guest access, skipping, or browsing before registering — rather than gating the product behind an account. The store's privacy disclosure is checked alongside it: that disclosure is self-reported, so it corroborates this credit rather than establishing it.
Package artefact
sha256:c8575253b756f3426a2b6363c4647b691f4bc7d53820c8786bf8afa75e6f887eThe app's own text says: "View the ad you saved when you were offline"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own copy describes working without a connection — offline mode, downloading for offline use, or content saved for later. Shown because readers filter on it; it is a feature, not a fairness property, and never counts for or against an app.
Package artefact
sha256:c8575253b756f3426a2b6363c4647b691f4bc7d53820c8786bf8afa75e6f887e400 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Too slow... make an option for add images instead of folder picture, please introduce this feature full of ads
Very bad experience. So many adds
A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.
“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.
Android package V1-210601, scanned 25 Oct 2026. These describe that package, not the current store version.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version V1-210601 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-25 .
The store currently lists version V1-210601, updated 2024-05-13.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
No release notes were provided for this version.
file-manager-google-com-mi-android-globalfileexplorerAssessed 2026-10-25 from 400 user reviews, the app's package and the store listing.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
No itemized purchase list is available for this listing.
This assessment is produced automatically. Five independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest and the store listing — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Write to [email protected], or use the form. Name the finding, the app version and the evidence that needs correcting. Factual corrections are free and never depend on buying anything.