You may apply for refund when the Property of Service is not received in your…
Elex WirelessSome warnings 7 users report having to pay to progress. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 400 reviews, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 27 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 2.9.58 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 2.9.58, updated 2026-05-20.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
You may apply for refund when the Property of Service is not received in your account after your purchase. You may contact our customer service via link in game, or send us an email at [email protected]
Build a military empire and raise dragons to strike your enemies in Clash of Queens! With fierce dragons and massive clan wars, the mobile strategy war genre soars to an entirely new level.
Fight to defend the honor of your queen, or betray her cause to gain power for yourself; the choice is yours. Raise a dragon, clash in epic battle, and form close friendships with players from around the world in addicting online strategy games. Knights fight and armies clash in this epic game of war, wits and dragons!
From the makers of the massively popular Clash of Kings comes the next chapter in the adventure.
Be brave, be loyal, or be defeated.
CLASH of QUEENS FEATURES…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Pay to progress: raised by 7 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 57 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.
400 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
I have played for several years. The game is ALL about money events. You can not win the new top prizes without spending almost $1000 or more per event. Monthly events like lucky wheel, treasure chests, queen event - are all spending…
Was a Good Game .... But with each and every update... Bringing more bugs and glitches.... Also is all about pay to win game
Pay to win packs go up £4 each time without warning now at £76. Full of bugs, glitches, cheaters. Customer services are little to no help. Typical game
A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.
“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.
No package has been scanned for this app, so nothing is published about what it ships. That is an absence of evidence, not a finding.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 2.9.58 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 2.9.58, updated 2026-05-20.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
No release notes were provided for this version.
Appworthy
clash-of-queens-google-com-elex-coq-gpAssessed 2026-10-27 from 400 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
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.
Write to [email protected], or use the form. Name the finding, the app version and the evidence that needs correcting. Factual corrections are free and never depend on buying anything.