Meet SeaHaze — Create AI Characters & Explore New Stories SeaHaze is an AI-p…
Seaart aiSome warnings 1 confirmed warning, and users report 1 more thing. Checked: 400 reviews, the Android app’s code, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 24 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 1.8.9.1792603343 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-24 .
The store currently lists version 1.8.9.1792603343, updated 2026-10-21.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Meet SeaHaze — Create AI Characters & Explore New Stories
SeaHaze is an AI-powered character creation and interactive
storytelling platform where imagination and original characters
come together.
Discover Unique AI Characters
Explore a wide variety of AI characters spanning fantasy,
anime-style, and game-like worlds. Each character has its own
personality, style, background, and traits — a starting point
for new stories and creative ideas.
Create Your Own Characters
Turn your ideas into original characters, piece by piece:
• Name, appearance, and visual style
• Personality traits and speaking style
• Backstory, lore, and defining traits
• Greeting and opening lines
Save every creation to your character library and reuse it
across different stories.…
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.
Bundles 4 distinct ad networks / mediation SDKs: Amazon Publisher Services, AppLovin MAX, Google Mobile Ads (AdMob / Ad Manager), Unity Ads
The package embeds several distinct advertising or mediation SDKs — a stack built for ad volume, not for a single house ad.
Package artefact
Appworthy
sha256:98459284aa28e1d917688b9f8579f6c272557d2f28def5409dbcfc43765d1d11Specific 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.
Price keeps rising: raised by 6 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 67 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The price of the paid tier has been raised on existing users.
Purchase screen steers the choice: "Best Value"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The purchase screen arrives with one plan already framed as the recommended or most popular choice, so the default is the app's preference rather than the user's. We do not compare the plans' prices, and only the app's own text evidences this, so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
Package artefact
sha256:98459284aa28e1d917688b9f8579f6c272557d2f28def5409dbcfc43765d1d11Deadline pressure in the app's own copy: "Limited-Time Offer"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own purchase copy attaches a deadline to buying — a countdown, 'offer ends in', 'limited time' — or ships a countdown view on a purchase-screen layout.
Package artefact
sha256:98459284aa28e1d917688b9f8579f6c272557d2f28def5409dbcfc43765d1d11The app's own text says: "Do not fill in"
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
sha256:98459284aa28e1d917688b9f8579f6c272557d2f28def5409dbcfc43765d1d11400 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
its a good app, but it would be much better if messages only cost 1 diamond per message. I will never buy in to something that is going to make it so overkill with charges. I attempted to buy some diamonds but the cost of each messages…
even with a monthly pass you end up having to buy more diamonds. it gets expensive quickly. story is good, good enough to keep me buying but also wondering how much I am willing to spend
The bots are mediocre, dialogue is plain and repetitive, always "a beat". You have to have coins or some type of currency to chat with these bots, first problem with this is the cost of currency increases as bot levels go up, from 10-12…
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 1.8.9.1792603343, scanned 24 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 1.8.9.1792603343 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-24 .
The store currently lists version 1.8.9.1792603343, updated 2026-10-21.
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.
seahazeAssessed 2026-10-24 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.
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 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.