Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-07 from 464 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 5.0.8 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-07 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.0.8, updated 2026-09-14.
What the analysis found
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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
So the ad lied!! The app advertised a feature where it creates a signature from a name, but it didn’t work at all for me. I entered a name and nothing happened. Pretty disappointing—other than that its AI image generator and ofc its paid
the video generator seemed mediocre and seemed like false advertising. I get that it was in the fine writing but I still dislike what felt like a hidden subscription charge. I cancelled immediately as I was charged the $30 1 week after I…
Paid €1.90 for the advertised 7-day full trial. Within seconds, it demanded payment again, pushing "credits" for features the trial should've covered. No visible support contact, no email, impossible to get support or explanation. This…
Reports of unexpected charges
My experience with DaVinci was very frustrating. I paid for the trial period and did not worked for me. The trial period you get 50 credits. You can create a video with using some old models. This is okay, after all is a 7 day trial…
The app charged, what I thought was a one time fee for a video creation, but when you buy the "tokens" it also subscribes you monthly without telling you. I cancelled immediately but they would not give me a refund.
Even if you cancel your subscription they still charge you the yearly. I'm trying to get my money back right now. Don't do it. EDIT: that was around July 13th when my purchase posted. I contacted DaVinci AI about my card, and they never…
Trial converts to a charge
complete scam of an AI system 3-day free trial automatically charges you the $7 Ultra censorship even when a woman is completely clothed you get a black blank photo the prompts are absolutely garbage either does nothing to change any of…
I love how it tells you no cost now and then immediately tries to charge you. Whatever you do, do not sign up for the 3 day free trial because it is just a way to charge your card right then and there. Avoid this app. AVOID!! Scam!!!!!!
beware of this app and the online version it gives you a free trial period and no warning of recurring monthly fees. if you contact them you will get an automated reply saying they cannot help. scam. I have already contacted Ted the scam…
Hard to cancel
Absolute SCAM!! DO NOT SUBSCRIBE!!! They reel you in with a free plan or $1.99 trial then when you try to cancel your subscription because it is garbage, you CANT UNSUBSCRIBE until AFTER you Pay $40. Like the unsubscribe option is not an…
scam. charged after cancelling .very hard to cancel subscription. do not use!!
Unauthorized Debits. Unimpressed with its generations. Won't touch copyrighted works, celebs or NSFW... makes it very hard to cancel by making you answer a bunch of questions before you even get a cancellation option and continued to bill…
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.