We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.2, updated 2025-11-24.
What the analysis found
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.
Trial converts to a charge
Worst app - do not get scammed! — The app is the worst to use and has no good features to even pay for! Also they claim that customer will get 3 day free trial and then charge yearly. But will charge you as soon as you click on the yearly…
Fake free trial — Got the free trial and it said it wouldn’t charge me until the renewal day but I canceled it 3 days before renewal and it still charged my card.
SCAMMERS — I signed up for a free trial a year ago and then that same day they charged me five dollars and five dollars a week subsequently they offer the SAME services for $15 a year — over $250 later for an app, I never used. I’ve never…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
False advertising. It's not free, no nothing you can do free here. — Everything paid. Nothing free. Ad promotion like a scam.
Trash — App fails to produce AI generated images due to unresponsive server. I want a refund for this garbage. The ad was a lie.
False Advertising — App will advertise effects that cannot be done in app. Disappointed as it does have a large download size so was assuming actually something worth while
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 1 more purchase 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.