Some warnings 1 confirmed warning. Checked: 400 reviews, the Android app’s code, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 30 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 1.0.5 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-30 .
The store currently lists version 1.0.4, updated 2026-06-30.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Will your resume pass the robots? Check your ATS score, improve it with AI, and land more interviews. Trusted by 2.5 million+ job seekers!
Automated screening software (ATS) ruthlessly auto-rejects perfectly good applications every day. Resume Builder is a complete CV maker engineered to beat the algorithm and put your resume directly into human hands.
AI RESUME WRITER
- Tell us what you did — AI turns it into recruiter-ready bullet points
- Fix weak phrasing with one tap
- Write summaries and skill sections in seconds
ATS SCORE CHECK
- Scan your resume against any job description
- Instant 0-100 score with a clear breakdown
- See exactly which keywords, sections and formats to fix
- Re-score until you're interview-ready…
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 12 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 33 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's own text says: "50+ premium templates"
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.
Package artefact
Appworthy
sha256:cba85eba94e2a4226510701f50ed3db0d4571176e3775da2137258c05eed93c0Offers a trial ("Free plan – upgrade for all templates") and states no renewal price, renewal date or auto-renew notice anywhere in the app's own text
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own screens offer a free trial without stating, beside it, what happens when the trial ends. Read this as context rather than as a charge: renewal terms are normally shown on the store's purchase sheet instead, which we cannot see, and we can only observe one kind of evidence for this — so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
Package artefact
sha256:cba85eba94e2a4226510701f50ed3db0d4571176e3775da2137258c05eed93c0The app's own text says: "Skip"
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:cba85eba94e2a4226510701f50ed3db0d4571176e3775da2137258c05eed93c0The app's own text says: "Open ad when you're back online."
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:cba85eba94e2a4226510701f50ed3db0d4571176e3775da2137258c05eed93c0400 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
This is not a good app. It will take a lot of time with so many ads.
Uninstalled in 1 minute, too many ads.
Worst resume builder app..Too much adds in between your text..I don't know why it's rating is too high
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 1.0.5, scanned 28 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 1.0.5 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-30 .
The store currently lists version 1.0.4, updated 2026-06-30.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
Thank you for using Resume Builder! This update includes: - A refreshed, cleaner interface that's easier to navigate - Bug fixes for a smoother, more stable experience Check your ATS score before your next resume application!
No release notes were provided for this version.
resume-builder-apple-1457796755Assessed 2026-10-30 from 400 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.
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.
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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 recurring plan the store lists is named as weekly, the term read from the purchase names, with a list cut off at the store’s 10-item maximum not assessed; 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.