What’s the catch? Aggressive ad load — reported by 27 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 26.19.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.20.0, updated 2026-10-05.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 26.19.0, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 26.20.0 · 2026-10-05
Say hello to everything new on Viki! Check out the latest Asian TV shows and movies we've added, as well as updates and improvements to your viewing experience.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
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.
Aggressive ad load
Too much ads — There are way too many ads for me to watch and all of them are the same ones over and over again with just a plain black screen. I have to watch five add just to watch my show! I don’t mind ads but that’s just too much!
Ads — There are a bit too much ads
Pretty good — Very nice movies and more opportunities than Netflix the problem is just too many adds and it starts glitching sometimes like not loading the movies
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 8 more purchases 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.