DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Pixelcut AI Photo Editor
Pixelcut Inc. · Lifestyle

We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.

Nothing unfair corroborated · unauditedConfidence: High6 signal sources1,028 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-07
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 0.46.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-07 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 0.46.5, updated 2026-09-21.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 0.9.62 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 0.9.66, updated 2026-09-24.

The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 0.9.62, not the version now listed on the store.

Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:

Version 0.9.66 · 2026-09-24

No release notes were provided for this version.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Positive evidence 3

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 2389d018d694…
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 purchase"
No advertising SDKs
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 2389d018d694…
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
What we saw: No advertising or mediation SDK among the 9 SDKs detected in the package
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 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.

Reported by users: Trial converts to a charge
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The free trial demands a payment method up front and/or rolls into a paid subscription with no usable warning.
What we saw: Trial converts to a charge: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (1.0% of 478 reviews scanned)
Reported by users: Paywall blocks the basics
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
What we saw: Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 7 distinct reviewers (1.3% of 550 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.

Trial converts to a charge

I canceled the payment 2 minutes after subscribing not realizing the that would end the free trial. when I reactivated the subscription thinking I still had the free trial I checked my payments and realized my card was charged for $65. I…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-05-31

Hi, I was recently charged P1,450 even though I do not have an active subscription. I only signed up for the 3-day free trial and was not aware that it would automatically renew. Without any notice, the amount was deducted from my UNION…

5★ · Google Play · 2026-08-10

status is not refunded, I Purchased by accident because all I know is free trial only, but it end it automatically deduct from may crdedit card.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-07-29

Paywall blocks the basics

They give you no way to cancel. They can change their name, and they do! Deceitful bunch of scam artists promise one thing, deliver another, take away credits randomly, bill you $30 a month for what ? Nothing but the opportunity to pay…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-06-14

everything is paid

1★ · Google Play · 2026-07-14

Paywall — Horrible app. There is a huge paywall and you can’t do anything without paying. If there wasn’t a paywall and it would actually work then it would be way better. Don’t download this.

1★ · App Store · 2026-08-01

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 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.

Subscriptions5
Pixelcut Pro MembershipTerm not stated$4.99
Pixelcut Pro MembershipTerm not stated$9.99
Pixelcut Pro MembershipTerm not stated$89.99
Pixelcut Pro MembershipTerm not stated$59.99
Pixelcut Pro MembershipTerm not stated$7.99
One-off packs2
1,000 CreditsPack$4.99
2,000 CreditsPack$9.99
Show 1 more purchase we couldn’t categorise

These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.

Remove Background ProTerm not stated$59.99
This list is cut off. Apple shows at most 10 in-app purchases, and this app is at the limit — so it very likely sells more than we can see.
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 2026-10-07 Version analyzed: 0.46.5 (App Store), 0.9.62 (Google Play)6 independent signals1,028 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.