What’s the catch? Aggressive ad load — reported by 92 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 2.106.9 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.106.9, updated 2026-09-04.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
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.
Aggressive ad load
Information on the upgraded subscriptions — There is nothing listed about the up graded subscriptions and what it offers comparing it to the other. Also, too many advertisements.
The advertisements are painful — Just downloaded it, opened it, added an event and immediately along pop-up advertisement came on. Add another event, repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat more advertisements. No thank you
Ads! — I pay for the “pro” subscription, but it still shows me lots of pop up ads. Used to be awesome. Now it’s getting annoying
Paywall blocks the basics
Scam — This app used to be free and now requires Pro and a subscription to avoid obnoxious adds. I have been paying for Pro for MONTHS and am still receiving intermittent adds. This is an absolute SCAM.
Recurring is behind paywall — The recurring feature is only accessible in the paid version so this is a gigantic no for me.
Used to be a great app — This use to be a great app but then you started asking for a monthly fee. I thought, okay it’s just $2 a month. Then you wanted more money. No more. I will not give any more money for something that was free and…
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.