Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,077 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.
App Store
This analysis describes version 1.1.9 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.1.9, updated 2026-09-17.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.1.9 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.1.9, updated 2026-09-11.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Pay to progress
avoid habby games at all cost, another p2w trash, even the event they make is forcing you to pay to get stuff
Even tho the game is fun to play, it is heavily pay to win, with little to no good free events that would reward players without spending money.
exactly 1 year ago I gave it 3 stars and today I give it 4 for the following reasons: positives : I came back after a while and earned a lot of rewards making me go from 30k power to 110k . offline rewards or as I want to call it away…
Aggressive ad load
this game is really good except for many ads. the casino plus ads 4 mins long for real??
Forced Ad simulator
play couple of days....pay to win, full of ads, lag, unbalance, bad enginered, bad experience....
Paywall blocks the basics
installed for Rick & Morty, discovered that the odds of getting them while being a new player are insane. Strange marketing, collabing most likely to get new fans, and then practically locking Rick & Morty behind a paywall, discouraging…
The developers are committed to monetization. I've seen basic characters locked behind paywalls. You wont play long before needing to spend money to unlock anything of value, and besides the default character, everything is locked. If you…
ridiculous amount of money required to progress later 1 event lasts less than a month and runs concurrently with other events will cost you $160+ to clear it. changed to 1 star after reading bull replies by Habby saying they will pass on…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
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.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.