DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
PNC Mobile
PNC Bank, N.A. · Finance

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 1,343 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: High6 signal sources1,343 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

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 5.5.0, updated 2026-09-21.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Positive evidence 2

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

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
No advertising SDKs
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 669bf2607003…
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
What we saw: No advertising or mediation SDK among the 4 SDKs detected in the package

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.

In the app's own text: Hard to cancel
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 669bf2607003…
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Cancellation copy routes the user away from a direct control: "This transfer was canceled. If you didn't cancel it or you want more information, contact us."
In the app's own text: Countdown-timer purchase pressure
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 669bf2607003…
The app's own purchase copy attaches a deadline to buying — a countdown, 'offer ends in', 'limited time' — or ships a countdown view on a purchase-screen layout.
What we saw: Deadline pressure in the app's own copy: "Offer Expires:"
In the app's own text: Tracking and data collection concerns
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app manifest.artefact 669bf2607003…
The app ships session-recording or a wide tracking stack, holds permissions that read personal data, or is reported by users to sell, leak or over-collect it. The evidence line says which of those was observed.
What we saw: The app requests QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES, which lets the app enumerate every other app installed on the device.

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 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: unknown6 independent signals1,343 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.