We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.59 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.59, updated 2026-03-24.
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
ÇOK ÇOK KÖTÜ — This app is terrible and completely useless. It did not work as I expected and was not helpful at all. It advertised a 3-day free trial, but I was charged immediately instead of being given the trial period. I barely used…
APP will charge you before free trial period brings — Avoid installing this app at all costs. I installed it and cancelled the subscription just 30 minutes later. The free trial is a scam, you will get charged the same day.
Speech recognition and translation does not work well enough to use — I tried to use this app to help me translate when abroad and the apps functionality was pretty useless. I was expecting a lot more for the price they try and charge. I…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Chinese App — Chinese app with deceptive marketing / charging techniques. Works very slow on cellular data
Fake Fake Fake — Fake advertising Fake promises I was searching for translation for Oromo Language and the add shows and the don’t have this language among the list of languages
Bait and switch — You’ll have to choose between 19.99 a year and 4.99 a week to get the free trial. For the free trial take the 4.99 then cancel, delete the app and download load again if you like it. It seems no better than Google…
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.