We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.4.10 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.4.10, updated 2026-07-06.
What the analysis found
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.
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
Bait and Switch! Annual premium+Three Day… $29.99 — What the heck is a + one month full premium access for everyone who PURCHASED extensions? I’ve already paid for it. Why would I I now pay for it yearly ? I won’t. You told another…
paid in full received nothing — do not trust this guy I sent him a email saying "hey what do you mean I have to pay starting in Decembe". I paid for two years including 10 extensions and only got one year...and now you want me to pay a…
Will no longer support this app. — UPDATE: The developer is extremely dishonest! They responded “we see no negative reviews only positive”, which is a complete lie as they are responding negatively to reviews with 1 to 3 stars. Do…
Paywall blocks the basics
Great app — Updated review 8/6/25 I’ve lost all features I’ve had in the past. I paid for this app (twice -for 2 phones) and now they’ve removed the features that I previously got and put them behind a subscription paywall. To me, that’s…
Ruined by greed — App used to be great at tracking moon phases. Now it’s unusable if you don’t pay for premium. All previous functions that were free are now behind a paywall.
Enjoyable app. Must restore purchases often — This app is feature rich. I appreciate being able to turn off the music in settings. A minor irritation that may be causing some other users to feel they are being scammed is that widgets and…
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.