Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 406 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.
This analysis describes version 2.9.40 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.9.40, updated 2026-02-23.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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.
Hard to cancel
Do not try this app. your trial will become a difficult to cancel subscription. I should have read more reviews. I initially downloaded to try out some different styles. it was not good. some of the styles looked nothing like the preview.
this app is nothing but trouble, you can't cancel your subscription, the only option they provide is a email, I have sent numerous emails to cancel my account but instead of canceling it they try to take payment from place they don't have…
I downloaded this app and then tried on 3 different occasions to figure out how to make it work and navigate it. and what is worse, I can't figure out how to cancel it and it is past the 3 day trial. This is very frustrating because I…
Paywall blocks the basics
I got this because of an Ad for AI trained to set fitting haircuts, everything in the said menu is behind a paywall.
If i can give it a zero star, I will. Everything is paid.
Dont download. Everything cost money
What this app sells
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.