Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 959 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 5.7 (274) of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.7 (274), updated 2026-08-13.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 5.7 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.7, updated 2026-08-10.
What the analysis found
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
Positive evidence 1
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.
Tracking and data collection concerns
the best map app available no question how this is a lifestyle requirement for any disbursed campers or trial lovers. download the map area you want and it can do more then I am able to put in use. tracking my location offline is so…
Best tool on a fire line — As a wildland firefighter, I understand the importance of having accurate and up-to-date information at my fingertips. Avenza Maps has become an indispensable app in my firefighting toolkit. Its exceptional…
Defending your privacy — If you’re reading this, you’re using an iPhone. If you’re using an iPhone, there’s a good chance that (1) you value your privacy and (2) you are, or would like to be, active. Read this company’s privacy policy…
Paywall blocks the basics
The new paywall has made me uninstall the app. I used to use this regularly for hunting and hiking. I told all my friends how great it was because I could import up to 3 GeoPDF maps. Now you have to pay for this functionality. If they…
do not bother using this app. avenza used to be borderline essential for forestry or ecological surveys. now it is a worthless waste of space on your device, being behind a paywall to do anything useful. it was free for so long and…
The lack of android auto is disappointing, but more egregious is the recent change to limit importing custom maps behind a paywall. Scummy tactics, and one that guarantees they won't see a cent from me while that remains their policy
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 10 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. 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.