Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 955 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
App Store
This analysis describes version 7.250.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.250.0, updated 2026-09-28.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 5.243.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.243.0, updated 2026-09-28.
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 1
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 of unexpected charges
When purchasing tickets through,I clicked on Saturday, but because there were no available times, the site defaulted to Sunday without making it obvious. It was very easy to miss, and I ended up buying tickets for the wrong day. First, I…
I've been using them for a couple of years. They do have really cool shows available through them, but have absolutely horrible customer service. Don't buy tickets for anything that you aren't willing to lose money on. I've had one show…
completely garbage app. I tried it because I got emailed a a code for half off a movie ticket, but when I actually used it the code said it was approved and then the charge on my card was full price. I talked to the chat immediately, and…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Absolute disaster. Fever's purchase flow, emails, and app tickets all explicitly stated the San Siro Sky Tour was included. Upon arrival, we found it wasn't—a detail hidden only in an attached Italian PDF contradicting everything else…
purchased tickets not received — found the event on instagram. purchased tickets. had to download app. unsble to see tickets. tried to get a refund. customer service offered credit instead. after reading all these other reviews, it feels…
Fever Steals your Money — I purchased tickets for an event and paid extra for seats near the front of the venue. When I arrived the event was doing general seating and I did not get the seats I paid for. This also means 2/3 of the guests…
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.