We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
App Store
This analysis describes version 13.12.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 13.12.1, updated 2026-09-21.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 13.11.2 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 13.12.1, updated 2026-09-22.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 2
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 5
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.
Trial converts to a charge
I really like this app as a matter of fact I love it the problem is when my free trial ended I lost half of my benefits I don't have enough money to subscribe again I just wish everything in the app is free you know
This is a good and helpful app and I did benefit from using it. However, I was unexpectedly charged $70 after I believed I had properly cancelled my free trial, which I understood was supposed to be free through my Lenten group. To their…
I had the worst experience for being charged Php1,990 without notifying me first. I signed up for a free trial, afterwhich I was charged for a full annual payment with no notification. As much as I want to increase my prayer time…
Hard to cancel
Automatic renewal is sneaky Cancelation process isn't easy --- Change in Hallow policy was not approved by me and I was unable to cancel. I do not approve of the new policy.
I used this app for a few days and can't cancel it. I Uninstalled it after the few days and you still keep trying to get $69.99 out of my account. I DO NOT WANT THIS APP. Stop trying to take money from my account.
can't cancel free trial.
Paywall blocks the basics
Discouragement. I am extremely displeased with recent updates. Daily readings have been locked behind a pay wall, despite previously being free. Not only this, but it was also done haphazardly, with workarounds being present. This was…
I've cancelled my subscription. I'm tired of using YouTube to pray because your app needs so much internet bandwidth, and your "support" just reads a script and lies. Also, who puts the rosary, of all things, behind a paywall? Foolish…
Thank you so much for explaining! 💗 I didn’t realize that scholarships were available for people who can’t afford the subscription. I really appreciate you offering that option, and I’ll definitely reach out to support.(My only issue was…
Reports of unexpected charges
This is a good and helpful app and I did benefit from using it. However, I was unexpectedly charged $70 after I believed I had properly cancelled my free trial, which I understood was supposed to be free through my Lenten group. To their…
can't figure out how to cancel and they keep charging my credit card per year.
misleading protocols...then I learned there's a surprise $69 fee. Wow! I guess that when following one's curiosity about faith traditions one must be wary. I regret that I entered any personal information.
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.