Master English, Math, Science, and More with Visual & Interactive Flashcards!
Mor Tosbaa MobileSome warnings 5 users report an aggressive ad load. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 35 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 2.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-26 .
The store currently lists version 2.0, updated 2026-09-14.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Master English, Math, Science, and More with Visual & Interactive Flashcards!
Looking for the fastest way to learn a new language, ace your math exams, or expand your general knowledge?
Quick Flash is your all-in-one study companion, designed to make learning efficient, visual, and long-lasting through the power of active recall.
Whether you’re a student, a professional, or a lifelong learner, Quick Flash offers thousands of ready-to-use flashcards and the flexibility to create your own personalized decks.
🚀 Why Quick Flash?
Comprehensive Library
• 4,000+ flashcards for English
• Hundreds of cards for Math, Physics, History, and more
Multi-Sensory Learning
• Visuals, example sentences, and audio pronunciation
• Learn by seeing, reading, and hearing
Dual-Language Support
• Flip cards to see translations in your selected language
• Perfect for fast vocabulary building…
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.
Aggressive ad load: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 7 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.
35 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Different than the Ad, full of advertisements and ads. I think it's a trap.
very stupid app, do not recommend, full of ads waste of time
It was my responsibility to come all the way here to rate 1 star for irritating forced ads.
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 2.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-26 .
The store currently lists version 2.0, updated 2026-09-14.
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.
Appworthy
quick-flashAssessed 2026-10-26 from 35 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.
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.