Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 961 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 1.8.7 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.8.7, updated 2026-09-09.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 19.0.13 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 19.0.13, updated 2026-07-23.
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 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.
Trial converts to a charge
Offered a free trial, I clicked on it and automatically charged me $59.99. Than I put in the carrier and tracking number, couldn't locate it. So now trying to get a refund
Dishonest — I downloaded the app to track a package, it offered me a 7 day free trial but when I accepted it it charged me $14, there’s no free trial only download if you are okay with paying $12 a week
TOO EXPENSIVE! — They don’t notify you like they say they will before your trial period ends! It is Way To EXPENSIVE for Normal people to be able to afford!! Thank you, but NO THANK YOU!!
Hard to cancel
Stay away. I was trying to track a package that was deemed non-deliverable. I was given this link to check the tracking number. They charge $9.99. There is a 7-Day trial, so I thought I just checked this package and then cancel. there is…
App doesn't work at all; shows no info whatsoever, but wants to charge $14 a WEEK via subscription. A pain to cancel. Don't bother.
This app sucks!! I'm not able to log in and I'm sure the free trial will run out before you hear from customer service because there is no way to cancel when you can't get logged in. So I sent an email so we'll see
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
This app is not free and they charged me 9.99 to track a package and there is NO WAY TO CANCEL THE SUBSCRIPTION. VERY INAPPROPRIATE AND FALSE ADVERTISING AND WAY TO STEAL PEOPLE'S MONEY 💰 STAY AWAY AT ALL COSTS!! ONLY FREE FOR 7 DAYS…
They use deceptive ads on other tracking sites to trick users to download this thinking it is for the other tracking website. Their app also is slow and does not load the tracking data of some packages other sites display, even though it…
False Advertisement!!! In order to ""TRACK"" MY PACKAGE I KEEP BEING SENT A LINK TO ""PAY"" FOR THE TRACKING. OTHERWISE I WILL NOT GET THE TRACKING UPDATE. "SHAME ON YOU!!"
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 2 more purchases 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.