What’s the catch? Hard to cancel — 2 independent sources agree, backed by user reviews and the app's own on-screen text.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 6.276.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.276.0, updated 2026-10-04.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 6.244.0.1 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version VARY, updated 2026-09-26.
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.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 5
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
Website is better — So many ads omg. Suggesting that someone use another app is crazy. Just use the mobile website. Less spam and less data harvesting.
It’s ok — So many ads, which seems unfair since you are charged a chunk of your money to sell. Almost as many as Gumtree, which eBay also owns, but that’s free! Cheap postage, but Evri are reknowned to be unreliable and slow. And please…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
search doesn't work, live auctions are almost entirely scams, listings full of false advertising, fakes and outright scams. customer service is designed to frustrate you till you go away. Working against the consumer at every level.
Your AI helper sucks — Why force app user to use your half baked AI? I’m not trying to have to deal with false advertising claims because your FORCED feature gets things wrong, if you genuinely think that your users are so lazy that they…
Impossible to work with — The UI is garbage now, they shove Ai everywhere, and they do false advertising where they make it seem like you are required to pay them, when you are not. Awful site
Price keeps rising
Misleading prices and postage — In a summary list, the price and postage of items shown are exclusive of the buyer’s premium that is now being charged. It’s only when you click on an item that the true price is displayed. Even then…
Encourages Scalping — Despite violating the platform’s official policies, eBay allows and encourages price gouging and scalping.
Reports of unexpected charges
Horrible app — Sold something for $190. Got charged $70 for random charges and hidden costs. Then got an email saying what I shipped was 8x the proper weight and they were going to charge me an additional $110. This app is absolute…
Horrible — As a seller there is a fee for almost every step of the way and believe me they try to def skim and scam your money I mean as long as you can figure out a different payment method it’s all good can’t tax what they don’t see feel
Sucks for sellers now — If your a buyer you can look for anything on here it could be fun. But if you’re here to sell it sucks. I’ve sold an item work 250 and the fees would only have be get back 175??? I’ve sold another item for about…
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.