What’s the catch? Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording — reported by 37 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 4.2.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.2.1, updated 2026-09-12.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
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.
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
Bait and switch, No support response — Paid for one-time premium upgrade of unlimited app access and have since been blocked by a new paywall constantly asking to pay again. No response on outreach and follow up to support to resolve.
Paid for lifetime after using for years — I like the interface of this app and used it for years to track resolutions. They went to a pop up every time asking you to upgrade. I finally decided to pay the lifetime this year so I could…
Scam - don’t pay for the upgrade. — Free version is fine, but it’s slow. And an ad pops up every time you open the app asking you to upgrade to the paid version. Finally did it just to get the message to go away…paid $21.39 and never got…
Aggressive ad load
Used to be great now it’s unusable — I can’t add new items to track and get endless ads for their growth bundle which I’m uninterested in. I already paid for the premium plan, which the app keeps forgetting. It’s become an annoying app to…
Glitchy but good otherwise — I really like the app until recently. In spite of already paying for another year of membership I get pop up ads constantly asking me to buy another membership. The widget doesn’t work. Please fix your app……
A good app gone bad — Ive used this for three years and loved it. But the most recent update has a pop-up ad to pay $20 to "upgrade" and "bundle" every single time I open the app. I already paid for the app, and they work to upsell me…
Paywall blocks the basics
Removed features after purchase — I bought this app years ago and in that time they have disabled and removed basic features behind a paywall. At this point the app I purchased feels like I paid for them to advertise their other products…
Review — When I first saw this app I thought it was a great way to track my habits and goals. As u download it everything costs money you can add more than 3 goals/habits with out paying a monthly. Every time I now open this app it tells…
Upset — I personally think this is not a good app. It limits your tracking up to 3 “goals” and if you want more you have to pay. It’s truly not the best idea considering you have to pay for a simple self care app. I really think there is…
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.
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.