Serious warnings 2 confirmed warnings, and users report 1 more thing. Checked: 1,262 reviews, the Android app’s code, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 26 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 5.1.12 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-26 .
The store currently lists version 5.1.12, updated 2026-09-09.
This analysis describes version 5.1.14 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-20 .
The store currently lists version 5.1.14, updated 2026-10-10.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Paint by Number is a global-renowned coloring and puzzle game with over 200 million users of all ages. PBN is dedicated to creating a gateway that could take you away from the ordinary and uneventful aspects of life and lead you to an imaginative and beautiful world of coloring. Each painting in PBN comes from top artists worldwide who passionately invest themselves in their craft, striving for excellence in every creation. This devotion ensures you'll experience high-quality masterpieces.
PBN boasts over 30,000 artworks spanning various categories, such as fantasy, nature, animals, and so on. Simply pick an image, follow the number, and create a lifelike masterpiece in no time! Coloring has never been easier!…
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 15 distinct ad networks / mediation SDKs: Amazon Publisher Services, AppLovin MAX, BidMachine, Chartboost and 11 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:fbe3431f77f3a8d69a5a1dbefac55eb049422d9b691bb4d1bdc58365d93666d0Aggressive ad load: raised by 45 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 17 reviews we read)
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
Facts that add context without being a charge.
In-app purchases run from USD 0.99 to USD 69.99 — a 71x spread across 10 items
The disclosed in-app purchases span an unusually wide price range. Published as context: the cheapest and priciest items may be different kinds of product entirely, so the spread alone deducts nothing.
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.
Misleading advertising: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 152 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Reviewers repeatedly report that the app is not what its advertising showed. We never see the ad creative itself, so nothing we collect can corroborate or refute this — it is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
Deadline pressure in the app's own copy: "Limited Offer"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own purchase copy attaches a deadline to buying — a countdown, 'offer ends in', 'limited time' — or ships a countdown view on a purchase-screen layout.
Package artefact
sha256:fbe3431f77f3a8d69a5a1dbefac55eb049422d9b691bb4d1bdc58365d93666d01,262 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Raised by 45 distinct reviewers — about 1 in 17 reviews we read on this store leg (Google Play).
the ads are completely fake, this game is nothing like the ads, and way to many ads ingame, not worth it, there are better paint by number games out there
lots of ad
there are too many ads! I try to fill in a cell and an ad pops up, I don't mind ads before or after a pic is colored but this is way too many
the ads are completely fake, this game is nothing like the ads, and way to many ads ingame, not worth it, there are better paint by number games out there
Not what they advertised — I down loaded this app for all the beautiful tree houses you showed but there is not one to color. Why advertise false info. DELETE
It’s an ok game — It’s advertised as a add free game but it’s not
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 5.1.14, 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 5.1.12 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-26 .
The store currently lists version 5.1.12, updated 2026-09-09.
This analysis describes version 5.1.14 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-20 .
The store currently lists version 5.1.14, updated 2026-10-10.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
A brand-new version of the game is now available. Enjoy an easier coloring experience in the new version. - General optimizations - Bug fixes
No release notes were provided for this version.
No release notes were provided for this version.
No release notes were provided for this version.
paint-by-number-coloring-gameAssessed 2026-10-26 from 1,262 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 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.