We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 5.1.6 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.1.6, updated 2025-09-17.
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.
Aggressive ad load
Our one time payment to remove all ads are gone — Give us all our money back or I will report this app to Apple personally.
To much ads for terrible images only gave 5 stars so I don’t get review deleted — Can’t even make anything without ads getting in way
Meh — I have 3 reasons for what this is 3 stars. First, there are so many adds because every time I want to make an image quick it takes way too long. Second, when I put in a picture of myself I got pictures of a guy so glasses ( I don’t…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Lifetime membership SCAM — Reported to Apple. The "lifetime membership".... No such thing. Do Not Purchase. Bait and switch scam whereby they show you a "lifetime membership". There is no way to see your actual subscription. No way to see…
False advertising Scam — I bought the premium unlimited lifetime version a few years ago, and I loved it. I used to use it for fun. Today I open and it’s asking me to buy credits to be able to use it. That’s not cool, what was the purpose…
Latest update is trash — The most recent update switched the aspect ratio from something like 16x9 to 1x1. Also, previously the generator would produce 4 images per request and now it only does 2. These changes would be okay if they were…
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.