We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2.1.3 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.1.3, updated 2025-05-28.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 5
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
Too many ads. — I cant even scan the code because it automatically just sends a link before me getting to scan the full image.
Ads are ridiculous — The amount of ads on this app is ridiculous. I just downloaded it to try before deciding to pay for it but I cannot do anything without an ad popping up. I scanned a code and it was able to read it, but before I can…
Free version unusable — Keeps taking images before I can center on the code. Then shows me full screen ads. I get it’s ad supported but come on. At least let me try the product!
Trial converts to a charge
Terrible scam — When you download an app that says free you expect to be able to use it - you know - without paying money. Even if there are features locked behind a paywall you still get to do something. Not here! You can’t use any part…
Free for Android not for IPhone — Why should Apple IPhone users have to pay for something that Android users get for free? Android users are able to download GOOGLE PLAY, Apple users have to pay for a third party scanner. Plus only…
Canceled and still charged — I tried this for a couple of days under a free trial and was still charged.
Hard to cancel
Worthless — Doesn’t work. Can’t cancel “free membership”. Beware
Did not use app — Loaded app did not work, no way to cancel
Cannot cancel subscription — I had a 3 day free trial period. The app will not let me cancel before the trial period is up!!! When I go to subscription, there is none under settings, I have none. The app have no cancel button, so what do…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Not even remotely close to what it promised in the ad — On Facebook, they had an ad of beautiful QR codes with AI generated art, they stated that this app can create those images. It clearly does not. It’s just a QR code app nothing more…
It is not free. — Only free for 3 days then a subscription. Bait and switch.
False advertising. — It’s not free except for 3 days
Reports of unexpected charges
Unauthorized purchase — I just downloaded the app and only used it once after one week I saw a unauthorized purchase on my card from this app for $41 one year subscription. I am getting really worried I cannot afford the subscription. I…
Never refunded but continued to charge — Submit for a refund after the app charged me multiple time. with no response. Then they continued to charge my card without permission.
So sick of hidden fees — It said free but it’s 39.99 a year. Treat us like consumers. Why can’t developers tell us the price upfront. If you went in a store you wouldn’t fill your cart with things not knowing the price. If the product is…
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.