We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 155.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 155.0, updated 2026-08-30.
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
Opt out of billionaires — Great browser to opt out of billionaires selling your personal data so they can buy more and bigger boats and arm ornaments
Still… — …learning how to use it AND still it feels much safer than Google. Google’s primary business model is to accumulate and sell as much data as possible. Might that be yours or mine? Do the math re one of the wealthiest data mining…
Can count on Firefox being secure — I always use Firefox browser, like its Privacy & Security options, esp Private mode. Never know how much more privacy invasion or constitution rights busting "big brother" is gonna pull next.
Aggressive ad load
Ads go through now — Title. The adblocker, or to clarify, the safari extension, it used to block all ads; and websites would also not detect the extension and turn it off. Now, it lets more ads through and more trackers as a result. The…
So terrible I had to write a review — This app is terrible. It doesn't do anything it says. I don't believe these reviews are legit at all. What this app will give you: a terribly inconsistent scrolling experience. Endless ads. Not…
not blocking all ads — this app has declined in its ability to block ads
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.