Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 406 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 3.3.213 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.3.213, updated 2026-09-15.
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 2
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
This app feels like it was designed solely for ad revenue rather than actually helping users choose colors. The experience is incredibly frustrating because ads pop up every few seconds. On top of that, almost every colour is locked…
Paid for the full, unlocked app. now I open the app and everything is locked and they want more money. Don't bother, they will just stitch you up in a year's time.
The app isn't worth using. Everything is stuck behind a paywall and they even make money off you with forced ads during onboarding, before even get to try the app! Predatory tactic. I am looking for a tool to help me easily pick a Sikkens…
Aggressive ad load
This app feels like it was designed solely for ad revenue rather than actually helping users choose colors. The experience is incredibly frustrating because ads pop up every few seconds. On top of that, almost every colour is locked…
When I first bought it you could select your color, now it wants me to pay an additional fee to unlock that previously free feature. The ads are just constant now too. What's next, a fee to unlock being able to upload photos? You don't…
too many ads and can't pick colours other than five default ones without paying. apps seems to work well if you wanna pay though
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.