Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 1,860 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.
This analysis describes version 0.4.425 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 0.4.425, updated 2026-10-02.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
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.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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
Because people can be critics too, here's my review. I believe my review will change, for Chai likes to update their app frequently. Almost daily. I get it. They're just testing new things out. I don't mind it. There are excessive ads…
when the pop up ads show up in chat they take up the whole screen, and i can't even scroll up to read the whole chat the bot said because it reloads the ad and brings me back to the bottom. and they have gotten rid of unlimited chats. i…
app is okay. i find the new currency option frustrating. i get you need money but you had it fine before. you don't need to offer a membership have constant ads and then on top of that require people to watch more ads or wait for hours to…
Paywall blocks the basics
Okay, they actually added a model selection. but the free tier is too limited and bring back the old bots please
Chats delete after 30 days, you have to pay for everything now.. EVEN MESSAGES NOW, the app isn't as good as it used to, I can't afford to keep paying and stuff. I want someone to fix this issue, they are taking a while to fix this
this used to be GREAT i used to spend 30mins escaping reality but now it doesn't even let you chat with bots unless you PAY this used to be free and unlimited chats, now it only prioritizes paying users this is unfair and chai lost many…
Pay to progress
I was annoyed with all the ads I was getting every few messages, but now it's gotten to a point where I no longer have unlimited messages and now have to PAY to get 'pieces' in order to continue chatting. No thanks! there are dozens of…
they're starting to get greedy and remove free aspects of the app soon it'll all be pay to win
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
I love it this app but the update they just did isn't any fair. I didn't mind only have 771 messages each day. till they give free messages again im not using it. which I hate to be that person. but I dont want to pay for it when its…
Paywall with no way past it
even if i have ultra, it's not that different from the unpaid version. but most people cant even use it without paying. sad.
can't use the app without paying
Price keeps rising
first of All your putting price that's okay but for God sake why you guys are suddenly putting rules? we all are 20+ we know what we are chatting in this App we don't need any rules it's kinda frustrating 🙄🙄🙄bruh and 2nd is you put…
i used this app for so long in the starting it cost me 299 only as a subscription but now they're increasing it's rate before we can use this app with ads too but now it really banned uss indians bangladeshi and pakistani nepali people…
this app is good but the subscription is so expensive for a week and keeps increasing sometime it doesn't even show payed even when already Amt is paid
What this app sells
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.