We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.9.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.9.0, updated 2026-10-01.
What the analysis found
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.
Aggressive ad load
Helps me focus — I’ve had Endel well over a year now. The deep work audio is what I use the most even though I’d really figured it wouldn’t make a difference. First, I am a harsh critic because Endel had a lot of ads out on Facebook that…
Great app, ads are annoying — My go-to app for soundscapes for productivity, relaxing, sleeping, etc. I really love it. I’m removing one star because I have a subscription, but despite that, every time I open the app, I’m given a…
Ads, even though I’ve paid! — I want to love this app and recommend it to everyone, but I can’t. I pay for Premium, yet every time I open the app I’m greeted with a full-screen ad that blocks me from doing anything until I close it. I’ve…
Trial converts to a charge
Won’t let you unsubscribe and will keep charging you — I did a free trial and hit cancel before it started charging last year, it charged me so whatever at first, I unsubscribed before it could charge me again this year and it’s still…
Lied about “free trial” — They charged my card without permission during a so-called free trial. Lies. Then they do not respond when contacted. Dishonest predatory practices.
Shocked — I must’ve accidentally signed up for a yearly subscription during a free trial and I got charged $119 by this app, which I was very shocked by, but I was even more shocked the fact that they refunded me instantly. It was sent…
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.