Some warnings 5 users report an aggressive ad load. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 100 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 1.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 1.5, updated 2024-08-07.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Step into the ring and prepare for the ultimate fighting experience! MFC - Midnight Fight Club brings the raw intensity and excitement of professional mixed martial arts fighting right to your fingertips. With unparalleled graphics, a diverse roster of fighters, and realistic physics, this is the mobile fighting game you've been waiting for.
Features:
Dynamic Combat System
Choose from two types of attacks—weak and heavy—to outwit your opponents. Nail the timing, and you could land a devastating blow. But be careful, timing is everything!
Defensive Maneuvers
Tired of button mashing? Our game rewards strategic fighting. Block incoming attacks, dodge out of the way, or use your custom stats to outclass your opponent.
Stun Mechanism
Land a special combo to stun your opponent.…
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.
Aggressive ad load: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 20 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
The store privacy disclosure (4 entries) links no contact details or identifiers to the user — consistent with an app that does not require an account. Self-reported by the developer.
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.
Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.
100 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Adds — Overall is a good game but as too much adds please take out a little bit adds out
Issues — If you throw a punch or kick sometimes it works perfect but other times the hit lands but deals no damage. Not that good of graphics either. Forced ads after every match. HUGE waste of time.
Idk — To 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.
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 1.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 1.5, updated 2024-08-07.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
- Added Online Mode (Quick March, Private Match) - Added Haptic vibrations - Added Training Notifications - Interface Improvements - Bug Fixes
Appworthy
mfcAssessed 2026-10-27 from 100 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.
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. 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.