Some warnings 15 users report a free trial turning into a charge; 12 users report the basics being behind a paywall. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 518 reviews, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 26 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 7.0.6 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-26 .
The store currently lists version 7.0.6, updated 2026-10-13.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Polycam turns a single phone scan into the documents jobs run on: floor plans, as-builts, estimates, roof reports, claims files, measurements, and CAD-ready exports. No tripod. No technician. No two-week wait.
WHAT YOU WALK AWAY WITH
• Floor plans — 2D and 3D, ready for AutoCAD, SketchUp, and Revit
• As-builts — weeks of documentation compressed into minutes
• Measurements — every dimension in the room, in the time it takes to cross it
• Estimates — priced off real conditions, not guesses
• Claims and damage records — dated, dimensioned, defensible
• 3D models and point clouds — .obj, .dae, .fbx, .stl, .dxf, .ply, .esx
• 360° tours — shareable links for clients and remote stakeholders…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Trial converts to a charge: raised by 15 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 35 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The free trial demands a payment method up front and/or rolls into a paid subscription with no usable warning.
Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 12 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 43 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
The store privacy disclosure (2 entries) links no contact details or identifiers to the user — consistent with an app that does not require an account. Self-reported by the developer.
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.
Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.
518 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Subscription Charges after Cancellation — I was charged $400 after I cancelled. My case has been submitted but would warn anyone that does a free trial to assume you will be charged $400 and have to fight for or it dispute it with your…
Theft, free trial scam — I set up a weeklong free trial for two users, and canceled the trial the same day I set it up, but after one week Polycam made multiple attempts to charge my checking account $400. They made no less than five…
Waste of time and money — Nothing will be accurate just go take measurements and charge your client this is a JOKE and they still charged me $400 after I canceled my free trial with in the same day of trying it out since it DOESN’T WORK!
Stingy — Some features used to be reasonably free, then everything became locked behind a paywall, might as well charge to download the app at this point, no point in making it free to download.
Is too expensive — It’s work but for download you have to pay for everything
Used to be great — I used to recommend this app to all my friends, and I even subscribed to the paid subscription, because I felt it was worth it even though I only used it a day or two per month. But now, they’ve moved many important…
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.
No package has been scanned for this app, so nothing is published about what it ships. That is an absence of evidence, not a finding.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 7.0.6 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-26 .
The store currently lists version 7.0.6, updated 2026-10-13.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
* Added a warning before you start a capture when your device storage is running low * Added a prompt to upload your capture to the cloud before you export an Xactimate file * Fixed an issue where you couldn’t regenerate an Xactimate (ESX) file after saving floor plan changes * Fixed an issue where referral links didn’t take you to the business plan checkout * Minor bug fixes and performance improvements
* Fixed a crash involving locked walls * Fixed an issue where black screen were appearing when adding photos to Gaussian splats * Fixed an issue where creating a business trial sends the user back to the offer instead of onboarding * Performance improvements
Appworthy
polycam-3d-scanner-and-modelingAssessed 2026-10-26 from 518 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — 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.