Some warnings 24 users report having to pay to progress. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 400 reviews, the Android app’s code, 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 7.628.4 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 7.628.4, updated 2023-05-30.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Liberate a post-apocalyptic world. Assemble your own invincible war robots and battle for victory!
Super Mechs is a breathtaking turn-based action game that provides you with a unique chance to create an invincible super robot!
Choose your weapons, armor and more to build your Mech warrior robot.
Create your own style and become the ultimate fighting robot.
Fight against your friends and rivals from all over the world in epic PvP battles, participate in the Super Mechs weekly tournament or advance your Mech through the single-player campaign missions.
Each fight you compete in will give you the opportunity to improve your Mech and advance in your quest to become the greatest Mech Gladiator out there.
There can be only one! Do you accept the challenge?
MAIN 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 24 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 17 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.
BEST GAME EVER. Edit: that was my opinion nearly 10 years ago, the game used to be great but gradually became worse and worse and now is just another pay to win cashgrab.
Its an awesome game but the pay to win aspect kills it. yeah you can build up for free but the amount of time and grinding you have to do just to upgrade a part 1 level is kinda ridiculous. plus once you get a part to legendary(gold) you…
i use to play this game almost every day when i was a kid on the web browser back in 2012-2013. back then there was no mythical items and this game was purely calculative, tactics, modification, testing in rank, and grinding stars.. it…
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 7.628.4, scanned 27 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 7.628.4 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 7.628.4, updated 2023-05-30.
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
super-mechsAssessed 2026-10-27 from 400 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.
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.