DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Videoleap: AI Video Editor
Lightricks Ltd. · Photo & Video

We analyzed this app across 6 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.

Nothing unfair corroborated · unauditedConfidence: High6 signal sources923 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-05
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 2.87.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 2.87.1, updated 2026-09-15.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 1.39.1 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 1.39.1, updated 2025-11-04.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Positive evidence 3

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

States a price, or offers a one-time purchase
Measuredfrom the app's own on-screen textartefact 917607172222…
The app's own text offers a one-time or lifetime purchase, or reviewers report that the price is stated clearly.
What we saw: Offers a one-time or lifetime purchase: "One-Time Purchase"
No advertising SDKs
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 917607172222…
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
What we saw: No advertising or mediation SDK among the 8 SDKs detected in the package
Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
What we saw: The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

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.

Reported by users: Paywall blocks the basics
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
What we saw: Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 13 distinct reviewers (2.6% of 507 reviews scanned)
In the app's own text: A plan is pre-picked as 'recommended'
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 917607172222…
The purchase screen arrives with one plan already framed as the recommended or most popular choice, so the default is the app's preference rather than the user's. We do not compare the plans' prices, and only the app's own text evidences this, so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
What we saw: Purchase screen steers the choice: "Best Deal"
Reported by users: Reports of unexpected charges
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
A large number of reviewers report being charged when they did not expect it — including being charged after cancelling during a free trial, or when a trial turned into a paid plan without warning. We cannot see anyone's billing, so this is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
What we saw: Surprise charges: raised by 22 distinct reviewers (4.3% of 507 reviews scanned)
In the app's own text: Trial terms not stated in the app's own text
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 917607172222…
The app's own screens offer a free trial without stating, beside it, what happens when the trial ends. Read this as context rather than as a charge: renewal terms are normally shown on the store's purchase sheet instead, which we cannot see, and we can only observe one kind of evidence for this — so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
What we saw: Offers a free trial ("Start your free trial") with no renewal price, renewal date or auto-renew notice anywhere in the app's own text

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.

Paywall blocks the basics

Paid App waste of time, everything is paid

1★ · Google Play · 2025-12-26

selfish developers 😡😡 everything is paid

1★ · Google Play · 2025-10-23

fake pramotion. every thing on app is paid

1★ · Google Play · 2025-09-25

Reports of unexpected charges

You keep making me pay for a plan and I've already paid for a plan and now you won't let me export my products because you want to scam me out of more money!!! Not ethical or professional.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-24

This company is super fraudulent and dishoenst. They continued to bill me after I had cancelled in Google Play, then refused to provide a refund even though I brought it to them immediately. $114 and the app is not what it advertised…

1★ · Google Play · 2025-07-30

Hidden Subscriptions — If you cancel your subscription through the app, make sure you cancel it on the website too or you might unknowingly get charged for years, and they will refuse a refund even if you have not accessed or had the app…

1★ · App Store · 2026-09-03

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 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.

Subscriptions2
Videoleap SubscriptionTerm not stated$69.99
Videoleap SubscriptionTerm not stated$9.99
Show 6 more purchases we couldn’t categorise

These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.

Unlimited AccessTerm not stated$9.99
Videoleap unlimited accessTerm not stated$7.99
Unlimited AccessTerm not stated$4.99
Edit, Crop & Reverse VideosTerm not stated$35.99
Videoleap unlimited accessTerm not stated$35.99
Unlimited accessTerm not stated$5.99
This list is cut off. Apple shows at most 10 in-app purchases, and this app is at the limit — so it very likely sells more than we can see.
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-05 Version analyzed: 2.87.1 (App Store), 1.39.1 (Google Play)6 independent signals923 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: 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.