We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
App Store
This analysis describes version 5.72.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.72.0, updated 2026-09-22.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 5.36.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.36.0, updated 2026-09-20.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 2
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 6
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
used to love this app now every time i open it it makes me go through the longest unskippable advertisement for their premium service. and when i finally get to the app there's one million popups for the premium features??? actually…
did nothing full of adds wasted my time
Ads — Way to many ads that I can barely use the app
Trial converts to a charge
It offers free trial but not unless I subscribe and put in my credit card information first. I don't trust these types of traps. If they have confidence in their App, they should let the users try it for free and let them be impressed by…
Don’t fall for free trial!!! 👎🏼 — Charged memberships even after I canceled during the free trial week!! Without my permission!! Wth
SCAMMERS — I originally signed up for a 7-day free trial and canceled it the same day, but still was billed for a year’s membership by Picture This Hong Kong. Unless you're sure about keeping this app, DO NOT choose the FREE TRIAL option…
Hard to cancel
stay away, they charged me for a year in advance without authorization, there is no way to cancel
This is so hard to cancel and get a refund!!!
Credit card details required to access 7 day free trial. $49.99 per year. I bet it's difficult to cancel too so as to catch people out. Beware!
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
was advertised as a free app but when downloaded, it was only a free trial
False advertising — Saw an advertisement where it showed how to kill weeds. Download the add, get the free trial where they pray you forget to cancel, and I take a picture of the weed. Tells me “oh it might be a weed who knows?” And…
AI ads are garbage — Your AI ads are trash and misleading.
Paywall blocks the basics
Nice app! — I’ve used it to identify tons of plants and help with my garden. My only complaint is just as a casual little houseplant caretaker, the fee is really just too much for me. <3 I use it without the fee, so many features (even…
What this app sells
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.