Some warnings 8 users report the basics being behind a paywall. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 400 reviews.
From our automated analysis, 27 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 1.5.3 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 1.5.3, updated 2026-05-07.
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Watch out for imitations! This is the original Twenty created by Stephen French.
Twenty is a colorful arcade/puzzle game that starts at 5, looks easy until 10, gets fiendish at 15 and challenges you to get to 20. Anyone can learn it, but you'll have to concentrate to make it all the way.
Think you've got it mastered? Try one of the variations like Bubbles, Drop, Flip-Flop. Try Zen mode to relax, or Panic mode for a real challenge.
Take on a friend with TwentyTwo, a crazy two-player race to see who can get to Twenty first. Steal tiles from your opponent but be careful to guard your own.
Can you get to Twenty?
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.
Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 8 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 50 reviews we read)
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
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.
Fun but flawed. I'm interested in this game enough that I used my Google Rewards money to buy the full version, but there's many aspects of the game that are just so irritating. Firstly, dark mode is an accessiblility feature so it should…
fun idea, bad progression. the game gets fast and after you get 20 once, it gets too intense. you can pause the game before every move to be smart about your decisions, but even this doesnt help on level 20. besides that, its a luck based…
I have scores on other game modes and now suddenly they're locked behind a pay wall. Free that becomes paid is not ideal.. Decent game, bad business.
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 1.5.3 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 1.5.3, updated 2026-05-07.
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
twentyAssessed 2026-10-27 from 400 user reviews. 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.
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read — user reviews — and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports 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.