We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 26.39.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.39.0, updated 2026-09-23.
What the analysis found
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.
Aggressive ad load
Ads and more ads — App used to be good. Now it's nothing but ads and subscription requests of $39 year! No longer even showing incidents at my location.
Not good anymore — I liked this app but now it is flooded with ads it reminds me of Facebook and the never ending ads so guess I will delete it. I realize you have to have ads to pay for your app but every other thing is an add so that…
Loved until… ads! — Great app but like everything else, you gotta pay or be annoyed. Sad, i really like it until the bombardment of upgrade notifications to avoid Ads🤷♀️
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
This really helps — So I found this on the web browsers thinking that this was a fake advertisement, but it turns out it was the best thing ever now I can finally know if anyone’s gonna rob me or something thank you crime radar it really…
Fake advertising — If you are claiming free scanning in your ads you shouldn’t have to pay for something I could get my hands on by paying on in the first place
It was awesome, but now it’s not! — I loved this app. It was so easy to keep track of what was going on around me, and especially because I live in an apartment. First they started censoring addresses, which is awful if it’s a super long…
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.