We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 12.1.6 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 12.1.6, updated 2026-09-28.
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.
Tracking and data collection concerns
selling personal data — out of nowhere with a new update, the switch to sell may data to other partners was on without my approval; i hope the EU will drop a good fine on you; my account is gone went missing, i do not know what they did…
They sell your data!! — Don’t buy and buy the offline dictionary. These guys sell your data to plethora of third party companies.
Saved words gone — There go years of looking up words and expanding my lexicon. Can no longer save words. Can’t even log in. If you don’t update to the most recent update, you can’t even use the dictionary search function. Over a decade…
Aggressive ad load
Bring back favorites + adfree — I would literally pay to have an ad free app. I'm trying to expand my knowledge, and being bombarded by irrelevant ads really ticks me off. I paid for ad-free in the past, I don't see why you would remove…
Ads — Too many ads top and bottom between wow eyes sore! I’m old fat thump on screen oh my! Slow down this ads trying to focus my reading too may distract oh my lord! By the way xAI is way better.
Pop up ads render this app unusable — I’ll search a word, and when I attempt to scroll down to read the definition, the page doesn’t move. The part of the screen that is supposed to register the scrolling is taken up by a pop up ad that…
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.