Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 601 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.
This analysis describes version 1.75 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.75, updated 2026-09-10.
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.
Paywall blocks the basics
Pros: It's a great app, with a good ability to allow you to learn sign language at a decent rate! It's easy to use, and is easy to understand! Cons: The practice-able stuff is behind a paywall, which is understandable, I mean you have to…
unfortunately for this app to be any good you need to pay for it. I think the paid version would be a great tool. With the free version you only get 3 lessons a day (I did the first 3 lessons in 6 minutes). Additionally all the other…
So far so good! The subs are optional! You can either do a lesson and come back the next day to continue and do another and so on and so forth OR pay (the average sub ASL app amount) to keep going. They offer a free trial but I just can't…
Users describe the free version as usable
You don't have to pay it's free! Once you are done with your short lesson you can go to "signs" at the bottom and look over then / practice! I love this app it's so great and I think it would be good for people trying to learn! I already…
I only use the free version but it is SO good! The video lessons really help you understand the shapes you should be making. Way more so than my paperback learning book I started with.
it's very cool!! the free version is more than enough in my opinion:)
What this app sells
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.