Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 413 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.
This analysis describes version 2026.8.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2026.8.0, updated 2026-08-19.
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.
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
It does a reasonably ok job of it's intended purpose, but it's gotten obnoxious. Thanks to Outside for always ruining good things. You must sign up for an account to use it, and they automatically sign you up for a massive amount of spam…
I have a subscription through Outside Plus that includes Trailforks Pro but I keep getting prompted to sign up and pay for PRO !!
While the app seems potentially useful, it is pushing their pro plan with unprecedented agression, almost literally on every touch. I uninstalled it after 15 minutes and (what felt like) 9000 pop-ups - and i was planning to upgrade to pro…
Paywall blocks the basics
Read a lot of good stuff about this app, but should've looked at the posting dates. The amount of UI that's dangled in front of you but locked behind a pro subscription is unreasonable. I uninstalled it after I realized I couldn't even…
I really liked the app before the latest update. What's the point of hiding trail ratings behind a paywall? Once a rider almost landed on my head while I was inspecting the trail, and I often have to stop mid-ride, because I had no idea…
Basic features locked behind a pay wall.
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.