We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 6.21 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.21, updated 2026-09-02.
What the analysis found
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.
Trial converts to a charge
SHADY SHADY company — Despite canceling during the free trial period keeps charging my credit card every week !!!!!! Update on 4/1 Contrary to what they have responded, despite canceling the subscription the same day as I started ( while…
Misread plants and double charged — I tried the 1 week free trial, got charged immediately instead of after the first week. I scanned a plant in my yard and it identified it as wild cabbage when it was clearly milk thistle, so I decided…
Impossible to cancel — I signed up for a free trial and forgot to cancel before the charge period. I then went to cancel after the first charge and found it is virtually impossible. In fact, I am still trying. The FAQs tell you to cancel…
Hard to cancel
No Longer Free — Hit cancel hidden top right. Now it cycles over and over pop ups to buy. Hit cancel. Pops right back up deletes your photo. Hit cancel. Take photo. Pops up deletes photo. Will not let you use the app without paying a…
Plantum you can’t cancel — I have tried to cancel this subscription. Even with google I cannot figure out how to do this. They are deceptive with this.
You CAN’T CANCEL THE SUBSCRIPTION!!! — I used this app for the free trial and purchased it for $24.95 but did not see anywhere that they charge $6.99 multiple times. I CANCELED the app. I reached out to the support team to cancel and…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Meh! — So far it has told me nothing, I feel that advertising is somewhat misleading.
Not Free — As I am looking for a free app to help with my plants I am rating all apps that advertise free but require a subscription. Hope my hard work helps others and prevents them the frustration of dealing with false advertising
Not what was advertised. — The advertisement showed scanning a plant and a cool thing like add milk, coffee etc popped up. I couldn’t try the app without subscribing to it. The “3 day trial” would make me sign up at a higher price. So I…
Reports of unexpected charges
SHADY SHADY company — Despite canceling during the free trial period keeps charging my credit card every week !!!!!! Update on 4/1 Contrary to what they have responded, despite canceling the subscription the same day as I started ( while…
Misread plants and double charged — I tried the 1 week free trial, got charged immediately instead of after the first week. I scanned a plant in my yard and it identified it as wild cabbage when it was clearly milk thistle, so I decided…
HIDDEN CHARGES — I went to sign up for what I thought was a monthly charge when I was prompted to pay what I thought would be a one time charge of $49.99 only to learn the app was charging me $6.99 every WEEK on top of the lifetime charge…
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, 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.