Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 722 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 26.7.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.7.1, updated 2026-09-09.
What the analysis found
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
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.
Trial converts to a charge
do not use them everything is false and misleading. I signed up because it said free trial but it was not charged my card $1.99 AND $29.99 and told me to request refund through Google play I am beyond mad
I was supposed to get a 3 free trial but it charged me immediately. not cool.
Trial — I canceled my subscription before the free trial was over but I have a pending charge for the subscription so now I can’t download anything else, so I do not like this app never got an offer and didn’t help me at all
Hard to cancel
it feels like a scam. I got an offer for 200.00 I had to pay for month sub up front for 1.99 reoccurring. then come to find out its not like Dave or possible. it sends out a loan request then the app locks you in and you cant cancel your…
so i think app is cool. but it likes to push you towards external borrowers. And then I found out how to avoid that (deselect 2nd option before agreeing on loan terms you want)but now i have a two hundred dollar loan out for thirteen…
SCAM!!! This is a scam! I tried to cancel the membership, the screen goes black and says lost connection. the customer service doesn't help. DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, THEY WILL BILL YOU AND YOU CANNOT CANCEL! SCAM. CLEARLY THE…
Tracking and data collection concerns
Sells your data to predatory lenders. Avoid like the plague
You get a message as though you got a loan only to see spnsors that want you to apply. I had a request that sat for 4 months with no answer. For only $200? Yet their is a screen scrolling by with all these people that just got loans a…
I signed up and gave all my bank information paid a subscription thinking I would get $200 instantly. they sold my information to lenders not a cash advance app. it was a total bait switch. nice way to make money on the useless app and…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
hey guys, first I wanna say that the ads to the app are misleading. thus isn't like money lion, cleo, or tilt. this app only takes down information to find leanding offers. first u need to apply for 2 subscriptions then u "might get…
This App Is False Advertisement. All it does is send you to external websites to try to get a loan. It does not provide loans to you even after paying for a subscription. It was a waste of money and feels like a scam to pay for a…
such a joke of an app. bait and switch. do not subscribe to this app
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
Show 1 more purchase we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.