Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 902 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.
App Store
This analysis describes version 8.3.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 8.3.1, updated 2026-09-20.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 5.0.14 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.0.14, updated 2026-03-31.
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 4
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
It’s a nice app. — I use this for my part time job so I can track how much my check is going to be each pay. The free version does have ads but it doesn’t impede on tracking my time or how much I make. I have never had an issue with the…
Used to like it — Used this app for years and always loved it… until now… it used to be free for only one job now your only allowed 21 entries….. will be deleting the app before I pay for something that I used to be able to use for free
Works Well but Subscription Model is Insane — 30 to 60 dollars a year for an app you don’t is crazy. They are not providing a service to you other than cloud storage that can easily be replaced with iCloud space that Apple users get for…
Price keeps rising
I've been using this app for about 7 years. I paid the 7 dollars. Now, they raised the price and kicked me out. They no longer respond to my emails.
Feedback on Huge Price Increase for Hours Subscription — I’ve been a long-time user (2010) of Hours and really appreciate how well it helps me track my time. However, I was surprised to see the annual subscription jump from $9.99/year to…
Capital market greed to an extreme — This app demonstrates without a doubt the greed of an “indie developer”. If the year was 2016 you lucked out on this app it. promised easy to use features and very organized GUI. This app pulled…
States a price, or offers a one-time purchase
Been great, would just like if yall didn't change it from the $5 one time fee for zero ads and unlimited entries to the now 4 different packages, i paid the $5 years ago and now ive started to get ads and prompts to pay to remove, this is…
loved this app on iOS so I needed it on my new android. would love to see a lifetime purchase option!
I have been using it for a year. I purchased it. since I got a new phone the app switched over but not my purchase so now it's popping up adds and offering me to buy it again. I thought it was a one time purchase plan. Any options for me?
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.