Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 429 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 2304 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2307, updated 2026-09-30.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 2304, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 2307 · 2026-09-30
No release notes were provided for this version.
What the analysis found
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
10/09/26 - (Rating 1) The update is not a bug fix, but a full screen video ad which runs in a loop and never comes out. It now don't let you read. 04/11/25 - (Rating 5) Ads does not interfere with your reading. also the controls are smooth.
It's ok. Ads are intrusive. Ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads. Too many ads. When reading a file, the ad shows up at the bottom of the screen and there is no way to dismiss it. Will not use for this reason. Interface seems fine otherwise. But…
After a couple years of use with no issue (and a 5 star rating), the app suddenly started showing full screen ads with sound (!), making the app basically unusable
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read — user reviews — and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports 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.