We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2025.12.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2025.12.1, updated 2025-12-12.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
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.
Aggressive ad load
Meh — To many adds pressuring you to get the upgrade. If you just need a calculator it’s ok but there are probably better apps
Wow say my name fast — The second I go In I get bombarded with ads to upgrade each time you try and do anything, it’s an upgrade ad the only free thing is the calculator which is still hard with the ads.
Too much ads — Too much ads
Paywall blocks the basics
So good — It really works but you have to pay for everything
Wouldn’t recommend — Costs $8 for picture solving and doesn’t even work. The rest of it is alright but everything costs money. Why it is a calculator? Make it free dammit.
Everything costs money 💵🤬🤬🤬 — This was tarible
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
Honestly Terrible. Don’t bother downloading. — Title. You will get a notification every time you open the app begging for you to buy its new fancy AI and monthly subscription. The interface is nothing special or worth noting. And every…
Pop up — An amazing app with tons of paid features like a picture the thing is it keeps popping up a subscription and it is hard to see the x button and it acts like it will delete the app, if you really want to make money make a no pop…
Uninstalling — Barely open the app and it’s asking $7.99 PER WEEK. More than 4 buttons in the main screen take you to the nagging screen asking for the subscription. Barely one minute of use and it’s asking me to rate it. Are you kidding…
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.