DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
InstaSize: AI Photo Editor
Instasize Inc. · Photo & Video

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.

1 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: High6 signal sources501 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 7.0.701 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 7.0.701, updated 2026-09-29.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 5.6.7 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 5.6.9, updated 2026-10-05.

The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 5.6.7, not the version now listed on the store.

Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:

Version 5.6.9 · 2026-10-05

No release notes were provided for this version.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

The catch list 1

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.

Price may differ from what you see here
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 7a9683886d98…
The app ships a remote paywall-experimentation SDK, so the offer shown is configured server-side and may differ per user — including from anything we or a reviewer saw.
What we saw: Paywall is server-configured and A/B tested via Superwall — the offer shown can differ per user

Positive evidence 3

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

States a price, or offers a one-time purchase
Measuredfrom the app's own on-screen textartefact 7a9683886d98…
The app's own text offers a one-time or lifetime purchase, or reviewers report that the price is stated clearly.
What we saw: Offers a one-time or lifetime purchase: "One time purchase"
No advertising SDKs
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 7a9683886d98…
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
What we saw: No advertising or mediation SDK among the 7 SDKs detected in the package
Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
What we saw: The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

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.

In the app's own text: Paywall with no way past it
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 7a9683886d98…
A paywall screen ships with no dismiss, skip or 'maybe later' affordance anywhere in the package, so the app's own text offers no way in without paying.
What we saw: Ships a purchase screen ("Paywall") with no dismiss, skip or "continue free" text anywhere in the package
Reported by users: Paywall blocks the basics
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
What we saw: Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (5.7% of 88 reviews scanned)
Reported by users: Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Declining an upgrade is written as a loss ('No thanks, I don't want to improve'), or users report being repeatedly pushed to subscribe during normal use.
What we saw: Constant upsell pressure: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (1.2% of 413 reviews scanned)
In the app's own text: Trial terms not stated in the app's own text
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 7a9683886d98…
The app's own screens offer a free trial without stating, beside it, what happens when the trial ends. Read this as context rather than as a charge: renewal terms are normally shown on the store's purchase sheet instead, which we cannot see, and we can only observe one kind of evidence for this — so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
What we saw: Offers a free trial ("FREE TRIAL") with no renewal price, renewal date or auto-renew notice anywhere in the app's own text
From the store listing: Usable without an account
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the store privacy disclosure.view evidence
The app's own screens offer a way past sign-up — guest access, skipping, or browsing before registering — rather than gating the product behind an account. The store's privacy disclosure is checked alongside it: that disclosure is self-reported, so it corroborates this credit rather than establishing it.
What we saw: The store privacy disclosure (5 entries) links no contact details or identifiers to the user — consistent with an app that does not require an account. Self-reported by the developer.

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 won't let me past the free premium trial offer. I don't wanna free trial, I just wanna use the free editor but it doesn't let me without trying Premium. it's a screen that completely covers my screen to try Premium for 3 days and it…

1★ · Google Play · 2025-12-06

DO NOT INSTALL. can't do anything on it without a subscription. complete waste.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-08-07

used to be good but now I have to pay to use the app used to be free real shame

1★ · Google Play · 2026-03-05

Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording

this app will harass you every 2 seconds to upgrade to premium, advertising stupid useless features which can be yours for only £12 a month. This notification pops up whenever you try to do anything in the app and youre not even allowed…

1★ · Google Play · 2025-06-07

Genuinely dreadful. I can frame images more easily by overlaying my photos on a white background image in the instagram app. When you resize images within a frame, it doesn't anchor them centrally, meaning that the borders are all…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-07-14

Nags you to buy a badly -overpriced, auto-renewing subscription after literally every single step of every single process. Pretty awful, honestly.

2★ · Google Play · 2025-06-07

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 7.0.701 (App Store), 5.6.7 (Google Play)6 independent signals501 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: 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.