What’s the catch? Multiple ad networks bundled — measured, backed by SDKs in the app package.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 8.17.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 8.17.0, updated 2026-09-26.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 8.17.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 8.17.0, updated 2026-09-23.
What the analysis found
The catch list 3
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 4
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.
Aggressive ad load
I absolutely love this app, but… — Don’t get me wrong you have to purchase almost every single thing on this app. Do more free stuff AirBrush. I have not found another app like this. Keep up the great work but like I said, do some free…
Paywall blocks the basics
updated please read.....I thought I was getting a free trial, but it charged my card and I can't get refunded. PLEASE refund my account..... I have continued to reply to your emails and you still have not refunded my money. I have given…
I used this app for years, every time I got a new phone I made sure to download Airbrush. But now everything is paid!! I'm so disappointed, time to find a new app.
After 7 years, I’m disappointed — I’ve been using this app since 2019 and I’m so upset that everything costs money now. All the features that were once apart of the free features are now apart of the paid subscription. Everything is also…
Trial converts to a charge
updated please read.....I thought I was getting a free trial, but it charged my card and I can't get refunded. PLEASE refund my account..... I have continued to reply to your emails and you still have not refunded my money. I have given…
I cancelled this 2 months ago and I'm being charged a new subscription 😡. I cancelled and got a refund for being charged for a free trial. I cancelled at that time. I'm now being charged with a new subscription 😡. Don't ever use this…
Free trail — Don’t fall the for free trail if you have bad memory. It said it was going to send a notification when the free trial was up, but it never did so my account was charged the full amount to pay so now I paid money I did not…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
NOT FREE — App advertises itself as a free photo editing app, you are unable to save photos that you’ve edited, effectively making this app only useful if you have purchased the subscription, this is false advertising
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.
Show 3 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
How the automated analysis works
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.
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.