We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
App Store
This analysis describes version 18.19 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 18.19, updated 2026-09-29.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 18.3.1 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version VARY, updated 2026-09-28.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 2
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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.
Trial converts to a charge
charged my card 40$ after a free trial and is forcing me to spend 25$ to cancel my unwanted membership. you can't even remove your card without putting another on the account, so I have to now block the website from charging my card.
I got scammed — Scam alert: I consent to pay 1 dollar and for charged $99 I paid 1 dollar for free trial that I never used. Three months later I go charged 99 dollars. As soon as I got charged without my permission, I complaint and asked…
There’s a cancellation fee — for an APP. They f-ing charge you extra to cancel — Forgot to cancel my free trial so they charged for the first month. All good that’s my fault. But there is also a $25 cancellation fee!! — to click a button…
Paywall blocks the basics
I hate this app so much with all my heart because it makes you pay for stuff so much it makes me so Annoyed and the app is so buggy. I have to pay for the most simple stuff. "Oh I want to see my family's yearbook!" SUBSCRIBE like that's…
It's a classic rent-seeking scam. They gatekeep public-domain and user-generated data behind a $720/year paywall, deliver mediocre or inaccurate results, and farm your family history + DNA like it's their property. It also takes advantage…
Have been a member on and off for years. Some information is not translated correctly especially from handwritten documents with lots of spelling errors making it difficult to research. If not a current member, your hard done research is…
Price keeps rising
price increases on subscription, this is a gotcha moment. disappointed.
Everything Cost NOW — I’m really not happy about the price increase. Every feature has a price tag to it and that’s really not fair especially when I use to get those functionalities free. This site is going down!
Easy, expensive, yet unreliable performance — I’ve used Ancestry for years. It keeps getting more and more expensive. It’s frustrating when trying to add hints to a record and have the program not work or give incorrect messages, like I…
What this app sells
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.