We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.2.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.2.5, updated 2026-08-07.
What the analysis found
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.
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
At least let me pay to remove ads — Constant ads, constant, pop-ups, full page hostage screens that prevent you from getting to your recipe. I already paid for this app and now it’s full of ads.
Not great / Ads — The app is convenient. I’ll admit but I paid for a subscription just to get an ad for Walmart every single time I opened the app. I don’t understand that…. ?? I understand if I wasn’t paying for it, but since I am, I…
Too much advertisement — Used to be good but now has become annoying with to many advertisement!
Paywall blocks the basics
I now have to pay a subscription fee to add MY OWN recipes!? — This app used to be a FREE, no ads app that was 5 stars and I recommended it to everyone. I input my home recipes to have on file so I don’t have to look in a notebook…
Can’t do anything without paying — Not worth it and far from free. Don’t waste your time. I can’t even import a single recipe from Instagram without singing up for a fee.
Free. It not free — First, the app is great and it’s free to download but your limited by a free trial week, then if you want to use all the features you have to pay for that service. That’s very misleading when it’s listed as a free app…
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.