We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 9.20.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 9.20.0, updated 2026-09-28.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
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
Terrible app with terrible customer service, exploitive. Avoid at all costs — I’m pretty sure I deleted the subscription as soon as I signed up for a free trial, but it ended up charging my card anyway. I asked for a refund it and was…
Subscription cancellation — I used the free trial for two days and wasn’t able to do what I was trying to do at no fault of the apps but then I canceled my free trial but the app is still trying to bill me even after I canceled my…
APP HAS NO FREE TRIAL AND WILL CHARGE YOU $59.99 IMMEDIATELY — This app had a free trial to try it out so I downloaded it today Feb 4th 2025 but I was immediately charged $59.99 with zero free trial. I wouldn’t have noticed if I wasn’t…
Paywall blocks the basics
Doesn't work anymore — This app used to process audio differently to suit my purpose but apparently these guys took after Alphabet; breaking something that works and putting the fix behind a subscription paywall.
Paying — I thought it would be amazing, because I didn’t have to pay for anything but it seems like a good app so far
Bro why?! — Voloco is a great app but you have to pay for a lot of things and I couldn't publish anything! I would really like it if they fix that.
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.