DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
PhotoApp - AI Photo Enhancer
ScaleUp · 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 sources465 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 2.9.8 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 2.9.8, updated 2026-08-19.

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 c19e14df8dc0…
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 Adapty — the offer shown can differ per user

Positive evidence 2

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 c19e14df8dc0…
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 payment for unlimited access, cancel any time"
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 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.

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 c19e14df8dc0…
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 ("Start Free Trial") with no renewal price, renewal date or auto-renew notice anywhere in the app's own text
Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Aggressive ad load: raised by 8 distinct reviewers (1.7% of 465 reviews scanned)
Reported by users: Hard to cancel
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Hard to cancel: raised by 8 distinct reviewers (1.7% of 465 reviews scanned)

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.

Aggressive ad load

Very good app, but only to many advertising

4★ · Google Play · 2025-12-08

You load a photo and then watch endless adds ,only to get a message that the add is loading and that you have to watch the adds before you can use the app, or buy an upgrade. No matter how many times you repeat this, you never get to the…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-05-29

too many ads as looks like very desperate to make money.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-05-11

Hard to cancel

It's a good app, however once you subscribe, it will be very hard to unsubscribe, so best of luck with all the money wasted and gone every end date subscription. you wont be able to find the app on payment/subscription methods on play…

1★ · Google Play · 2025-11-18

makes it impossible to cancel the membership. keeps taking out $9.99 every week even after reaching out by email.

1★ · Google Play · 2025-10-21

VERY BAD EXPERIENCE WITH APP... YOU ALWAYS PAY SUBSCRIPTION FEE EVEN YOU ARE NOT USING BECAUSE VERY HARD TO CANCEL, YOUR GCASH/PAYPAL ACCOUNT WILL ALWAYS DEDUCTED. BEWARE. NOT INTITLED TO EVEN 1 STAR

1★ · Google Play · 2025-10-23

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 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: 2.9.86 independent signals465 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.