Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 915 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
App Store
This analysis describes version 11.0.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 11.0.0, updated 2026-08-31.
Google Play
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 VARY, updated 2026-08-14.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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
Over before even starting. They force you to make an account, and they still bombard you with ads. UPDATE: So I ended up making a free account to try out, and unlike what they say, nothing is available, everything is still locked with a…
Paid to post whatever the payee wants published - Do the opposite of the headlines suggestion - Disingenuous Marketing - Full of adds even after paying - Not a good app for trading - Misleading hype narrative I could go on, but I need to…
Too many ads with every update. Time to find another app.
Paywall blocks the basics
At the beginning all analysis were free, after that you were getting a several free per week or month, now everything is paid. Additionally, recently they removed the total change of my holding each day, before it was very convenient just…
Frequent subscription attempts make the app unusable — The push of their subscription is desperate. 1. each portfolio has a big subscription header; 2. app opens with subscription page; 3. almost all articles behind paywall; 4…
Unbelievably poor performance — Simply can’t escape the bugs. The developer suggesting we uninstall and re-install the app suggests that they don’t know what causes the platform to be so buggy. App has been nearly worthless since they put…
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
Show 5 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.