Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-06 from 1,985 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.
App Store
This analysis describes version 26.40 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.40, updated 2026-10-01.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 26.38 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.40, updated 2026-10-06.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 26.38, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 26.40 · 2026-10-06
No release notes were provided for this version.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 1
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.
Reports of unexpected charges
Signed up last week and haven't hit any weird paywalls or surprise charges yet. Everything's upfront about what costs what, so I know what I'm paying for and when.!
Crooks. — Homeowner had a mental breakdown 3 days into a shared stay where i booked a month. he then proceeded to lie about me to airbnb support to MAKE SURE I COULDNT GET A REFUND for the remaining days after i left from getting…
Airbnb is over - Not what it used to be — I used to have amazing experiences on Airbnb, but they continue to go downhill, this trip I was verbally assaulted by a host. She screamed at us, kicked us out of her place, and Airbnb didn’t do…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
UPDATE I used this app again for a reservation in Madrid. after the worst travel day ever, I arrive and the host had horrible check in process. I contacted Airbnb for assistance and they canceled my reservation. I ended up having to find…
AIRBNB DELETES NEGATIVE REVIEWS! False advertisement, hosts report negative reviews and get them taken down. no true ratings. such a shame.
I quit using this company. They don't actually follow up with the hosts to make sure their property, pictures, and descriptions match what the host is offering. A lot of false advertising and not very descriptive. Pictures of properties…
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.