What’s the catch? Aggressive ad load — reported by 169 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 7.26.6 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.26.6, updated 2026-09-22.
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.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 6
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
Horrible — Way too many ads now. It’s not even useable.
TOO MANY ADS — Can’t get through sending files without spam Temu ads
To many ads — To many ads.
Trial converts to a charge
Scanner scammer! — I canceled the subscription, then a week later they charge me 65$!! I request a refund and get denied. This is NOT A FREE APP! They will charge you 65 dollars for something most apps would charge 20 for. There is…
Predatory — Forgot to cancel my 3 day free trial and instead of charging me for a week subscription it charged me for a year. £60 I’ll never see again.
Deceptive — They give you a 3 day free trial then charge you yearly. Not sure why this is so highly rated, even when you have premium they still plaster their logo on every pdf you sign.
Paywall blocks the basics
Ridiculous Amount Of Ads, Long Ads Too — Terrible. This app has recently flooded the free version with so many ads that it has become unusable. Not some quick pop up either, 30 second ads that constantly pop up every few actions you take…
Trash now — This app used to be super helpful but now it puts everything behind a paywall and serves you a bunch of ads any chance it gets
Reports of unexpected charges
Do not use the free trial and forget to cancel — Not a fan of this app. I used the free trial and then forgot to cancel my subscription and cancelled it the day of the renewal and they would not refund me. Not happy with the service
Scam — Don’t download don’t use as you will get scammed for £34.99 and no refund
App ok, auto-membership needs serious attention though — I signed up to this app to scan 1 document. It required a free trial which usually means I don't use them, but I was on something of a time crunch & did it anyways thinking if I…
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.