Some warnings 1 confirmed warning. Checked: 905 reviews, 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 4.2.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-26 .
The store currently lists version 4.2.0, updated 2026-10-23.
This analysis describes version 4.2.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-25 .
The store currently lists version 4.2.0, updated 2026-10-06.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Ruzzle is the legendary fast-paced and addictively fun word game. Challenge your friends or random players to find as many words as possible in two minutes.
- Top 10 word game in 145 countries
- Over 70 million players
- So addictive, it has been played for a total of 100,000 years
NEW!
- Now with Team Play!
- Co-op game mode where you play against other teams
- Compete in the Team Play leagues!
Ruzzle is a fast-paced and addictively fun word search game. Race against the clock and stretch your brain to its limits as you search and find as many words as you can in the time window.
Swipe over the scrambled letters to form the words and use bonus tiles to collect more points than your opponent. The game is played in three rounds, each played whenever suits you.
Have two minutes to spare? Challenge yourself and your friends in Ruzzle!…
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.
Aggressive ad load: raised by 53 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 10 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 1.99 to USD 39.99 — a 20x 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.
905 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Raised by 53 distinct reviewers — about 1 in 10 reviews we read on this store leg (App Store).
Used to love this game. But the developers are more and more sacrificing enjoyment for profit. As others have noted, boosters are almost essential now, but are more arduous to earn from too many ads. And in team play, instead of having a…
This game is a lot of fun, especially team play. One big negative: the latest revision made it way more difficult to earn boosters. You have to watch endless advertisements to earn the gold coins you use to buy boosters. Without boosters…
I enjoy the game, just hate that you have to sit through so many ads to gain gold bars. Should win gold bars for winning games. The coin to bar ratio is ridiculous. Or just take the boosters away altogether to make a level playing field.
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 4.2.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-26 .
The store currently lists version 4.2.0, updated 2026-10-23.
This analysis describes version 4.2.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-25 .
The store currently lists version 4.2.0, updated 2026-10-06.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
- Bug fixes and improvements Thanks for playing and for your continued feedback. Let's Ruzzle!
- Bug fixes and improvements Thanks for playing and for your continued feedback. Let's Ruzzle!
No release notes were provided for this version.
Appworthy
ruzzle-apple-504265646Assessed 2026-10-26 from 905 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.