Best Drifting & Racing Game
TIRAMISU STUDIOS YAZILIM HIZMETLERI ANONIM SIRKETISerious warnings 2 confirmed warnings. Checked: 641 reviews, the Android app’s code, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 30 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 2.6.94 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-30 .
The store lists the version as varying by device, updated 2026-09-14.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Favorite drifting game of more than 50,000,000 people around the world. One of the best racing game and it’s an addiction!
From the creators of the legendary drifting game Drift Max comes an epic new drifting game.
Featured globally numerous times; Drift Max Pro offers you the best drifting experience ever.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Findings that met the published evidence standard.
Bundles 16 distinct ad networks / mediation SDKs: Amazon Publisher Services, AppLovin MAX, BidMachine, Chartboost and 12 more
The package embeds several distinct advertising or mediation SDKs — a stack built for ad volume, not for a single house ad.
Package artefact
Appworthy
sha256:69f2a7151aface73b2d9cc0a7b57a07467a0d07e310d8d6768bf43effabe1531Aggressive ad load: raised by 12 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 53 reviews we read)
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
Specific evidence of a useful property, within the stated scope.
The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Offers a trial ("Free access now!") and states no renewal price, renewal date or auto-renew notice anywhere in the app's own text
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own screens offer a free trial without stating, beside it, what happens when the trial ends. Read this as context rather than as a charge: renewal terms are normally shown on the store's purchase sheet instead, which we cannot see, and we can only observe one kind of evidence for this — so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
Package artefact
sha256:69f2a7151aface73b2d9cc0a7b57a07467a0d07e310d8d6768bf43effabe1531The app's own text says: "Skip"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own screens offer a way past sign-up — guest access, skipping, or browsing before registering — rather than gating the product behind an account. The store's privacy disclosure is checked alongside it: that disclosure is self-reported, so it corroborates this credit rather than establishing it.
Package artefact
sha256:69f2a7151aface73b2d9cc0a7b57a07467a0d07e310d8d6768bf43effabe1531The app's own text says: "Thanks for your interest. We will share more once you're back online."
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own copy describes working without a connection — offline mode, downloading for offline use, or content saved for later. Shown because readers filter on it; it is a feature, not a fairness property, and never counts for or against an app.
Package artefact
sha256:69f2a7151aface73b2d9cc0a7b57a07467a0d07e310d8d6768bf43effabe1531641 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
too many adds
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.
Android package 2.6.94, scanned 20 Oct 2026. These describe that package, not the current store version.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 2.6.94 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-30 .
The store lists the version as varying by device, updated 2026-09-14.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
-Bug fixes
No release notes were provided for this version.
drift-max-pro-drift-racingAssessed 2026-10-30 from 641 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
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.
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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 recurring plan the store lists is named as weekly, the term read from the purchase names, with a list cut off at the store’s 10-item maximum not assessed; 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.