We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 3.222.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.222.0, updated 2026-09-26.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 5
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.
Hard to cancel
Can’t cancel — It’s impossible to cancel subscription they tell you your password is wrong and then they won’t let you reset it
Very Sugarcoated — Honestly whoever is downloading this app is 99% percent coming from one of the fantasy videos on TikTok. The features are cool and all but the trade finder literally only works if you have don’t edit it at all. Another…
It’s impossible to cancel — They put so many loop holes to make it impossible to cancel. I bought the subscription but it wasn’t really giving me what I was looking for, so I tried to cancel. It’s taken me over three hours just to talk to…
Trial converts to a charge
Scam — Their entire business strategy is to have people sign up for the free trial and then not let them cancel until they’re already charged them. No options to cancel as you don’t actively “have” the subscription during the trial it…
SCAM — Get you to do a free trial then charge you without authorization. Beware
Charged me despite canceling subscription — I ended my free trial, and subsequently deleted my account but was charged $70 for a PRO subscription. Do not use this app if you don’t want to be charged randomly for a subscription you…
Paywall blocks the basics
Like it But… — Very great tool but basically everything is behind a paywall. I am not sure how good the app is paid as I’m not paying but it seems very good, free analysis is helpful but few and far between not the app for me but if…
Ai thing — Pretty well setup on the news only down side is you have to pay for more advanced stuff but good for the basics
Horrible — Another app overtaken by Greed. The same stuff that was free last year is behind an insane paywall and is the same information you can get from the espn app. 0/10 reccomend this
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Do NOT use for Fantasy — If you are like me, heavily relying on an app to make the most informed fantasy draft choices and realtime picks, DO NOT BUY THIS APP…This app should remove ANY false advertising that it has a functional draft…
False Advertising — Does not sync with NFL.com, despite clearly advertising that they do. Be better and stop lying.
Worst — This app is advertised as “free to use” however that is not the case. On the free version you literally have to MANUALLY put in how many teams, the certain players on each team, and so much more. They let you sync your league just…
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 2 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.