Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 428 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
We cannot tell which version of the app this analysis describes. It was run 2026-10-04 , and the app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version VARY, updated 2026-01-12.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 1
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
Used this app for years. The whole plan user to be free. Now you need to pay if you want to progress past day 4. So disappointing. Uninstalled.
I have used this app several times over the last ~12 years. It's been an enormous help every time. I recently decided to do another 5k, and was dismayed and disgusted to learn that everything after the first 2 weeks is now locked behind a…
NOT WORTH! ALL BEHIND PAYWALL!! Used to rave about this app. Would tell everyone to get it! Just started running again and you can't go past week 2 before having to pay for a program that used to be free. Not worth the download, don't…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read — user reviews — and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports 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 It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an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.