DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Brainova: IQ Test & Logic Game
FALCON GAME Ā· Health & Fitness

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 429 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.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: High3 signal sources429 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 2.0.52 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 2.0.52, updated 2026-09-30.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Positive evidence 1

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
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.
What we saw: 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

One source only — shown, not confirmed 1

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.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Aggressive ad load: raised by 26 distinct reviewers (6.1% of 429 reviews scanned)

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.

Aggressive ad load

I personally find this app more difficult than it needs to be. The adds are constant which makes it a pain to do anything (which even if you aren't paying shouldn't be happening), also there are many aspects but most are overwhelming when…

2ā˜… Ā· Google Play Ā· 2026-03-22

This is not a good app! I cannot even play the damn game without being bombarded with ads! I couldn't even press the button on the game because the ads are in the way! like what kind of app is this! Do better! This is supposed to help…

1ā˜… Ā· Google Play Ā· 2026-04-12

I couldn't even open the app from the adverts. It's like a tsunami, overwhelming. After running cleaner twice, the app proved to be far too simple, child-like level. Drowning in adverts. Deleted after 1 game.

1ā˜… Ā· Google Play Ā· 2026-08-25

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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 ā€œReported by N usersā€, 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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

Several measurements above say ā€œNot assessedā€ 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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: 2.0.523 independent signals429 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.