Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-06 from 1,004 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 7.2.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.2.0, updated 2026-09-23.
Google Play
We cannot tell which version of the app this analysis describes. It was run 2026-10-04 , and the app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version VARY, updated 2026-09-24.
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 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.
Aggressive ad load
cool app. too many ads though
not impressed -- too many ads, not enough value
Ads ruin the experience. I'm fine with pop-up ads on my screen, but when I take a minute to swipe through a few vocabulary words, I should not be pulled away to watch an ad. and paying a monthly-yearly subscription to not have those…
Trial converts to a charge
Does not give the right definition of a lot of words and asked if I wanted a free trial then pay almost $4 a month. It said I could cancel when my 3-day free trial was up but it lied. It only let me cancel subscription AFTER the first…
Still charged me an ENTIRE YEAR after the free trial. I cancelled it at the end of the three days. (Edit) They gave me a refund
Zero warning on your free trial completing and them charging your card for an entire freaking year. Immediately cancelled and am disputing the transaction.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Deceptive marketing. Doesn't tell you it costs until you've downloaded and given loads of personal info.
I hate it when.. — I despise it when the app is free, they waste your time building a profile, and then before you start they introduce that the app isn’t ACTUALLY free. It’s a subscription service. I’m sure the app itself is fine, I just…
Wtf is this — The app is nothing like the Ad. Presume they used AI to pump out some misleading slop for their Ads. Hard miss. It’s expensive too.
Paywall blocks the basics
Can't do much of anything on the app without paying for a subscription. Had me take a quiz to see my vocabulary level and when I finished, it paywalled me. I also noticed, when using the feature to pronounce the word displayed on the…
Locked behind a paywall after three days? No thanks. Not even worth the free trial.
take a wild guess what i dislike about this app? B-B-B-BINGOO basic features are behind a paywall. dont waste your time on this garbage and use a thesaurus (a book with synonyms (words that mean the same thing as other words) and antonyms…
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 6 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.