We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 5.54.7543 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 6.2.0, updated 2026-09-25.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 3
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
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.
Hard to cancel
They are not honest about how you can cancel the app which is very frustrating. You cannot cancel it in the play store like they state in the instructions to cancel. Also the quality of the text to speech is poor. They can't recognize…
low, makes it hard to cancel and so far doesn't honor a refund.
You have to cancel Speechify within 24 hours of starting the trial period to avoid any changes. You can't get help or clarity about any issues with the app because they take 24 hours to answer so you would incur a charge of a 1 year…
Paywall blocks the basics
Its ok the book scanner sucks i was trying to load up my textbooks and it kept skipping around when reading and i had to crop every photo because it wasn't reading right and also literally everything cost money the ai,summary,podcast…
Yes there is the option to listen to documents for free. However, changing the voice at anytime is a lie unless you dont mind paying. I was testing out other voices, but the moment I clicked a new voice just to hear it before confirming…
For an app that claims to want to help, it simply doesn't. everything is locked under some crazy paywall, the actual pleasant sounding voices are gone the moment you get over the intro and its this horrible robotic voice as well as the…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
great idea but uses false ads to get you. you have to pay for the library. granted it's only one time but that isn't discussed up front. you also pay for memberships. thought you could scan a book and just start having the app read it…
This is a waste of money & time. The advertising is misleading: You CANNOT place your phone on a book cover & it'll just read it to you; that's a lie. You have to take a picture of each page individually, then have the app read that page…
Wish they had disclosed the subscription cost before collecting all your contact information. It feels a bit like a bait-and-switch. They want $99/year, so now you know before you install it.
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
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.
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.