We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 5.0.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 5.0.5, updated 2026-09-15.
What the analysis found
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.
Aggressive ad load
I could’ve done 5 but to much adds — I like the app because you can solve more puzzles than just a 3x3 cube
Ad garbage and unusable — Can’t even use it - overloaded with ads and garbage. Developer should be ashamed. Developer reached out on how to “disable ads” but the practice itself is nefarious and terrible experience for all age ranges.
Annoying ads it distracts from solving the stOOpid thing. — The ads are insane and stoopid every step it shows you is interrupted by a 1 minute stoopid pathetic ad.
Users describe the free version as usable
Awesome app❤️ — You don’t have to pay, and it’s basically a simple nice free app for beginners I RECOMEND
Five stars — So one day I was like to my mom hey mom can I get a rubix cube she said ok why not so she got it for me and I mixed it up and then I was like mom please can you help me so she said no just downlowd an app so I found this app…
Cure — It works and it’s free and u don’t have to pay and I works I played 14 times and it works
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
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.