We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2.70.0 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 2.70.2, updated 2026-09-25.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 3
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
I was thinking I was given a free trial and was charged for the app. I like to explore before putting my hard earned money towards something without researching first. I need my cash as simple as that, not to mention false advertisement…
False advertisement. They charged several charges when it was supposed to be a free trial. Now trying to get my money back.
not what I saw advertised. very deceiving app. No way to cancel either.
Trial converts to a charge
This is a scam. Supposed to have 7 day free trial, but they charged me $19.99 to tell me what kind of plant I had, which I already knew, and then wanted another $19.99 for a possible diagnosis! There's nowhere to ask for a refund or to…
Rip off. was charged 4.99 for free trial which I started 4 days ago so free trial is not up, then charged 35.99 for 15 day access and international fees as well. WTH???? This app is no better than what I had that didn't cost near as much…
So I signed up for the 3 day trial and before it was over Plantin charged me. i really hope they have a phone number for CS so I can call and dispute and request a refund. i would not recommend this app to anyone. You asked for my review…
Hard to cancel
continues to improperly name my plant and tells me it is well when clearly dying. I'm canceling now. I'm now told by the support that they can't cancel my subscription even though that emailing support is how I am directed how to change…
This app is a 🛑SCAM🛑 I am trialling a few different "plant apps" to suggest to my horticulture students as an easy way to retain info, not only is the information completely inaccurate, the app withdrawals money from your bank account…
I am being billed $49.99 a month not yearly. There is no way to cancel easily. If I could give this app a thumbs down, I would. I highly doubt anyone has put anything but a 1 or 2 star. The latest 5 star reviews are recent, which makes me…
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.