We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 3.1.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-07 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.1.0, updated 2026-09-28.
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
L̳͈͉̅̊ȍ̸̢̢̮͚̐̚v̸̵̝͙͆̈ͤe̸̖̪̱͚ͨ̀͜ — I love this app so much it actually works unlike some other apps. This one is very cool and I love all the fonts, but there is a lot of ads but it’s definitely worth it and also you get a few font but…
I mean it’s Decent — It’s good good app. I would recommend there’s a lot of ad, but I still like it. ℚ𝕘𝕫
Terrible — Its so terrible now... You have to watch adds for every single keyboard , and you also have to have pro for like all but one or two fonts.. DO NOT GET
Users describe the free version as usable
my friends wanted to know what this app was because I was texting them on discord I am a GT YouTuber — this is the best app ever. Also, could you make more things that people don’t have to pay for because my friends want to have it too…
Love ittt — This is really good! I like how i don’t have to pay for it too! Just downloaded it and it’s already so good!
Rate — They actually I didn’t have to pay for nothing. They actually let me like get my own keyboard. Get it all they made me watch like 2 to 3 ads, but it doesn’t matter at least at least they didn’t make you spend money like that’s good…
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.