DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Charades Guess Game · Guessly
smak apps · Games

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 899 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.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: High3 signal sources899 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 1.21.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.21.0, updated 2026-09-08.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 1.7.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.7.0, updated 2026-10-01.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

One source only — shown, not confirmed 3

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.

Reported by users: Hard to cancel
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Hard to cancel: raised by 6 distinct reviewers (1.9% of 321 reviews scanned)
Reported by users: Paywall blocks the basics
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
What we saw: Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 14 distinct reviewers (4.4% of 321 reviews scanned)
From the store listing: Usable without an account
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the store privacy disclosure.view evidence
The app's own screens offer a way past sign-up — guest access, skipping, or browsing before registering — rather than gating the product behind an account. The store's privacy disclosure is checked alongside it: that disclosure is self-reported, so it corroborates this credit rather than establishing it.
What we saw: The store privacy disclosure (5 entries) links no contact details or identifiers to the user — consistent with an app that does not require an account. Self-reported by the developer.

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.

Hard to cancel

Don’t download — They make you sign up for the “free trial” and then make it extremely difficult to cancel

1★ · App Store · 2026-03-01

Scam — Biggest scam app they charge 7.99 a week for using it ! And cancellation is hidden don’t even bother getting it

1★ · App Store · 2026-01-01

Subscription — I wont let me cancel my subscription at all and only wants me to update my payment method if i try too

1★ · App Store · 2025-10-29

Paywall blocks the basics

everything is paid

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

everything costs money

3★ · Google Play · 2026-09-29

I dont like the fact that you have to pay for most of the fun topics, you could atleast make a good amount of free topics and a few that you have to pay for but instead your decision was to make sure everything needs payment except 2…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-24

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: 1.21.0 (App Store), 1.7.0 (Google Play)3 independent signals899 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.