We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.39 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.39, updated 2026-09-10.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Paywall blocks the basics
Pay to Use — I was previously using this app before it updated, and it didn’t require REAL money to acquire the tokens. Now you have to pay for them in order to generate images.
Each “update” takes away more of the things that made this app great. GO FIND ANOTHER — I’ve had this app for years and it used to be super fun. You could play around with different ideas and tweak them in real time to experiment with…
Dear devs: — I’m not sure if it just me or now you have to pay when before you could have generated stuff for free. If it’s a bug, please fix. If not, please go back to being able to generate free photos
Hard to cancel
Won’t let me cancel no keyboard😡 — Cancelled want this but you won’t let me type anything
cancelling — they make it hard to cancel a subscription, they give you a free trial and then when you try to cancel it, they’ll charge you and you still won’t be able to cancel
Cancel free trial subscription — You make it difficult to cancel the free trial subscription.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Weekly trial $2.99 not true — I paid the $2.99 for a week trail and when I opened the app, it ask for a$39.00 for the year. False advertisement. Read very carefully before logging into this app. Information is misleading.
False Advertising — If I could give zero stars, I would. It clams to be free, and unfiltered but it’s neither. It’s overpriced and restricts every word you type in. You literally can’t put the word wiener in!! Don’t waste your time and…
I WANT MY MONEY BACK! — If I could give this zero stars boy I would! I paid for the year subscription to find out I can’t access non of the features unless I pay for it or join additional subscription. This is misleading, false…
What this app sells
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.
How the automated analysis works
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.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.