Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 934 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 1.7.8 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.7.8, updated 2026-09-01.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.7.8 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.7.8, updated 2026-09-14.
What the analysis found
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.
Trial converts to a charge
don't get this app, they give you a free trial then charge you almost 30 Australian dollars a month and there is no where on the app to cancel or ask for help, so went online googled the app number and unsubscribed from the website, be…
charges for free trial
was ridiculous!! and didn't work as advertised. don't waste your money on this app.i cancelled it before the free trial was over so I wouldn't get charged at all, I suggest you all do the same!!
Hard to cancel
BEWARE - DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS APP. I canceled through the Play store the same day I downloaded it. I continued to get charged and tried to cancel through the app itself with no effect. I finally had to go to my bank to dispute the…
I can't cancel my subscription. there is no way to c o intact customer service. I didn't know there were going to charge me WEEKLY.
Trash app that is impossible to cancel. I am so over being charged for this garage Stay away and use Canva or copilot.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
This is misleading, bad faith advertising and misrepresentation of services. Targeted ads led me to a survey which promised a unique "soul tattoo" based on my input. I did not get that. I got subscription-based access to an app. I…
very disappointed. try to type in description of what I want an it doesn't really give what I want. Also when signing up it was .77 a week 30 some a year it flat out charged me the 30 some. False advertisement forsure 😪
showed ads straight away, put in the prompts like in the ads and showed nothing like the ads only terrible depictions. I tried a majority of the prompts and different designs and nothing was to my liking.
Reports of unexpected charges
BEWARE - DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS APP. I canceled through the Play store the same day I downloaded it. I continued to get charged and tried to cancel through the app itself with no effect. I finally had to go to my bank to dispute the…
fraudulent app dont download! they keep charging my checking account even with no subscription nor no transactions! I even had to report my card as fraud and get it replaced, two times over this app. I have no idea how they got a hold of…
SCAM WARNING! I cancelled my subscription yet was still charged an amount of $22.43 USD or $33.51 AUD even though the amount was supposed to be $4.99 now I have to contact bank to reverse the charge and it isn't even showing in my google…
What this app sells
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.