Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 983 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.
App Store
This analysis describes version 9.3.16 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 9.3.16, updated 2026-09-28.
Google Play
We cannot tell which version of the app this analysis describes. It was run 2026-10-04 , and the app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 9.28, updated 2026-09-16.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
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.
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
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.
Aggressive ad load
I've had photogrid as an app on my phone for probably close to 15 yrs. Through 7 or 8 different phones, I've always made sure to keep this app downloaded because it never let me down. Until today. A company that gave quality picture grid…
This app is awful. So many ads, many of which are minutes long! Annoying watermark they only allow you to remove once for free. Hardly any layouts available in the free version. I installed FotoCollage and it is so much better. Short ads…
This use to be my go to app for all of my photo editing. I've used it for years. but, over the last few months, it's nothing but ads now, every selection almost you have to sit through an obnoxiously long ad that locks uo my phone. Sad to…
Trial converts to a charge
I was charged ₱1,990 for the PhotoGrid VIP yearly subscription after the free trial. I forgot to cancel the trial and did not intend to purchase the yearly plan. I already cancelled the subscription and tried contacting support but have…
this app is very bad. u should block this app because it automatically debits money to your account. they will give free trial then automatically debit subscription after the free trial. I am asking for a refund because my son…
the app doesn't allow me to cancel my subscription and I was charged although it is a free trial and it doesn't show on my Google play subscription
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 7 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. 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.
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.