We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
App Store
This analysis describes version 8.20.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 8.20.0, updated 2026-09-21.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 6.12.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.12.0, updated 2026-09-28.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 3
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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.
Hard to cancel
con - can't cancel free trial, cant contact the contact depart to tell them to end free trial to prevent getting charged. Absolute con.
Biggest scam! paying $50 per month does not allow for full access. they make nearly impossible to cancel the monthly fees. crooks!
Impossible to cancel subscription — Very predatory behavior. They make it impossible to cancel the subscription with broken links on their website to “cancel now.” Do not sign up.
Paywall blocks the basics
Coursera used to offer a vast range of courses for *free*, those same free courses are now locked behind an $80 a month paywall, or buying the course outright. Its such a shame to see greed take them over. there is almost nothing left…
no more free audit access to full course materials. you just totally alienated people that just enjoy learning because it makes them better people. actual education materials behind a paywall is not what humanity needs, especially right…
this company is liar, they offer you 7 days free trial but don't let you know that you won't get the certificate after all your job done, you'll waste so much time but won't get the certificate which is belong to you, they'll say that you…
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
Show 1 more purchase we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.