We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2.16.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.16.0, updated 2026-09-19.
What the analysis found
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.
Paywall blocks the basics
My fav — I hate how every editing app is behind a paywall. This app gives everything you need for free and I honestly see value in the cheap subscription and whatnot has to offer.
Facetune But Perfect — This is literally my first time writing an app review but I had to say how great this app is. It’s everything you would want to do in other apps like Facetune but you have to pay for those features (absolutely not…
Terrible — Everything you need to really do cost money and then to even take a screenshot it doesn’t even allow the picture to show up. Worst photo edit app I’ve ever seen.
Users describe the free version as usable
i love it — tbh im new at editing photos and its so beginner friendly, u dont HAVE to pay, bc theres good features like erase acne and smooth/heal things, and reshape as much as u want etc! and when u download the pic theres an ad that…
Even free version is great — But if a learning curve but even with free version it’s very effective. Great app, guys!
It’s ok — This app it great for all the little details but it is kind of complicated. There are so many little things to change and it can start to look really fake. There is also a lot of thing that you may want to change, but can’t…
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.
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.