We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 98.0.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 98.0.0, updated 2026-09-27.
What the analysis found
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.
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
Useless waste of money — Doesn’t understand any prompts and literally generated an ad was a completely different logo for an imaginary company, even though that they fit him 17 different forms of the same exact logo for the company and…
Deceptive business model. Demands a subscription, then demands you pay for video credits after. — I wanted to create a simple video with a few transitions and was prompted that I had to upgrade my plan which I did but afterwards they said…
False advertising — So I purchased this app it charged me for an entire year so I paid $182 for it to make a short video and then it still told me I needed a credit. It did not give me all the information about how that started so me…
Paywall blocks the basics
No Test Drive, No Purchase 👌🏻 — I was given 500 free credits, but the video models I actually wanted to test are locked behind a subscription upgrade. So I can’t use those credits to evaluate the service before paying. If you want users…
RunwayML — I don’t understand the point of having a monthly subscription if you still have to buy things inside the app. That’s pointless to have multiple subscription options. And still have to pay to use the app.
Fake Free Credits — Free credits are stuck behind paywall but they play it off like you get free generations with them.
Reports of unexpected charges
Charges even when it fails- Seems like a Scam — I've had repeated issues with Runway generating videos with obvious errors — random extra letters added to words (like an "r" tacked onto the end), and duplicated words in the prompt (I…
Failure after failure — I cannot get a minor video, like blur a license plate, to complete. Stalls at 98% over and over then says “Generation failed. Please try again” but it always uses the available credits and doesn’t refund them after…
Evil — The way their plans are worded is tricky. They tricked me into paying for yearly instead of the monthly plan, which is the one that I was looking for, and won’t refund me right after I purchased.
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.