We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 26.40.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.40.0, updated 2026-10-02.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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.
Hard to cancel
Scam app — This app has stole almost 1000 dollars from me I accept leads then the person is completely fake you can’t cancel after they just ask for an estimate and your stuck with a 90 dollar lead fee it’s a scam and false advertising…
Scam app — They give you a nice offer by $500 per month but if you cancel early you will be charged $2156.00 because it for a year the subscription and you cannot cancel it before the eat you $11,000.00…
SCAM — It's a total scam, don't fall for this scam, you can't cancel the service, there are no real customers, they only answer the opportunities that it is to charge you more money
Reports of unexpected charges
Empty Leads & Unauthorized charges — I stopped using their service 4 years ago, and out of nowhere, they charged me again after all this time. I contacted them immediately and requested a refund, but they refused to return my money…
Bad experience this app sucks — This app sucks they steal money from people. I never had any good leads. All customer had already some one contact them for a quote and the app still send me customer that wanted my service I would contact…
Don’t waste your money — I signed up with Angi Pro expecting legitimate opportunities to compete for real projects for my business, TruFinish LLC. I understand not every lead turns into a job, but contractors should at least receive valid…
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.