Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 154 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.
This analysis describes version 1.2.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.2.1, updated 2026-07-22.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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.
Aggressive ad load
could be nice but 15 ads between 14 questions (plain questions not levels-groups of questions) is way too much...also questions are not that hard and quite frankly are repeated 3 and 4 times as if they run out of puzzles..
Classic bait and switch with games. The ads fit this look really good, nice graphics, music... the actual game is super cheap and cheesy. There's an ad every 2 rounds also. You spend more time watching ads than actually playing the game…
free version is awful. Ads are always when complete a level. Cannot get out of the ad or skip it as takes you to a level demo of another game. Uninstalled straight away. It would be ok if it was an actual ad after ten games or so but not…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Game was entertaining but used deceptive advertising. Was advertised as a "cryptogram" style puzzle, upon further inspection you can see level 67 and 73 on the ad pictures but the lower levels were nothing like that. another ad heavy time…
The usual illogical guess game with primitive gfx. Currently at levels 100+ , i have yet to see any of the advertised riddles so the usual fraud penalty of minus two stars applies, which would actually mean zero stars in total. Game worth…
false advertisement if I could give 0 stars I would the video I downloaded the game from wasn't even this game it was a different game I don't know the name of and I'd rather play that game I think it shows what kind of company this is by…
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.