We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 1.0.2.025 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.0.2.025, updated 2026-09-29.
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.
Paywall blocks the basics
Liars — They tell you that you don’t have to pay for anything and then at the end when you finally finish all the stupid questions they asked you they ask you to start a trial for seven days and the. You have to pay for it first before…
Terrible. Bs — It makes you make a WHOLE plan just to hide behind a paywall. Just get alarmy its completely free and it does the same damn thing plus it tries tricking you into paying sooooo
Locked Behind Paywall No Free Version / Forced Subscription Can't Even Use It — Complete Waste of Time Forced Subscription Paywall Can't Even Open the App
Trial converts to a charge
Overall not worth it — When I first got the app, it was instantly blocked by a paywall. That's not the issue, though, as went to do the free trial, which said 3 days and it still charged me the next day. I liked the app blocking feature…
Prices and setting up — I don’t know if this was just mine, but the setting up was very difficult. It gave very few options for me and it cost money every single month to be able to use the app you’re not able to login unless you pay for…
DO NOT GET THIS — They charged me money for a free trial!
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.