Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 423 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 3.15.3 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.15.3, updated 2026-10-01.
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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Beware - feels very scammy Quiz promises a personalised experience but never delivers - I signed up for history and was recommended psychology. The visual style and writing style are childish, and the actual history "courses" (more like…
The app is ok but the advertisement and onboarding are misleading. I clicked on an app about a biology/botany game. It then took me through a series of questions about my interests. Once I was done it then asked me to sign up for a trial…
paid annual subscriber here, still giving the app only 3 stars. - content is thin in certain categories, general business and history/ philosophy has decent amount of content. i will run out of content I am interested in soon. 2. I cannot…
Paywall blocks the basics
I've used excellent apps for months that respect my privacy and let me play without ever demanding a credit card or a forced sign-up. This app does the opposite—it lures you in with a long questionnaire to get you 'invested', then hits…
"in app purchases" no, you need to pay to do anything. answer a bunch of questions and every other thing is about how great it is, should have been the red flag of you need to pay to do anything. you also can't do the free trial without…
Quite literally can't do anything without paying into the subscription.
Hard to cancel
Appears to have accurate information with very basic bite size descriptions. Made for people who are looking for a very brief summary about a specific topic in a grade ten level format. If Wikipedia is too much for you this would be an…
Don't believe them when they say they will notify you 2 days before they charge you. Tried to cancel and they still ripped me off for $79.95
⚠️ this app is too hard to cancel. didn't even use it they charged me $75. negative stars -1000. scary they can trick you like this.
Trial converts to a charge
downloaded the app, worked a few times. For some reason it wasn't loading it would just be a black screen. I got notification of free trial period ending within 2 days and automatically the next day it charged me the whole year. that was…
The app is good, but you're conned into a free trial period with a £40+ subscription with no warning, and impossible to find the refund or help option. Classic bait and hope they get distracted tactics. I'll update this if they respond well
l cancelled before the end date of my free trial subscription they offered me but I still got charged by Imprint... I feel stolen, worried and it is absolutely not what they told me they would help me for. l innocently accepted your free…
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.