What’s the catch? Price may differ from what you see here — measured, backed by SDKs in the app package.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 8.34.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 8.34.0, updated 2026-09-28.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 8.31.1 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 8.34.0, updated 2026-09-24.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
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 2
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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.
Paywall blocks the basics
I paid for this app for nearly a decade. I did not renew, so now have the free version. It's useless: it is littered with items and favorites, but everything is locked. I get it, you want me to pay. But you can visually arrange the free…
THE COSTUMER SERVICE IS TERRIBLE!!!!! IVE PAID FOR THE SERVICES FOR AT LEAST 2 MONTHS AND I HAVENT BEEN ABLE TO USE IT!!! I USE THIS APP TO MEDITATE WITH MY FAMILY AND TEACH THEM MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICES AND TO RELIEVE STRESS BUT ALL IT…
you need to pay for everything in the app. useless
Trial converts to a charge
Absolutely outrageous. My one-month free trial ended and they billed me for the next year. No one to claim it back. Any calm I received has been significantly outweighed by this scuminess.
The app promised a free trial, but I got charged when trying it out via Google Sotre. There is no human support so the AI chatbot keeps regurgitating useless information about how to theoretically get a refund via Google (that Google…
False advertising and charging without notice — Terrible experience, during the sign up process, on multiple pages was it listed that a free 14 day trial was available, even once I signed into an old account from years ago it still told…
Reports of unexpected charges
these are some moneygrabbing greedy ahs.. Never used it once, contacted them right after the unintended subscription and they refused to refund the one year charge. I have no use for it at all
Was 5 stars however they charged me without notifying me and refused to refund despite not having used for months
I have subscribed and been charged but can't seem to access anything. I then cancelled my subscription in the play store and it's not going to be refunded. Apparently I purchased a subscription without being logged in and headspace won't…
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.