Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,132 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 4.2.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.2.5, updated 2026-09-23.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 4.2.6 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.2.6, updated 2026-09-29.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
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 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.
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
The new update freezes a lot and too much ads that freeze the game too. This game have a lot of bugs and it's annoying
1. the ads are too much, it just pops out of nowhere making the game unplayable. At least make the ads appear after finishing the stage. 2. The hero suddenly disappears, and the game ends up stuck. 3. Monsters are so unbalanced that the…
I'm starting to agree with the other reviews. the forced ads... well they "force" the game to close half the time. and the new Reward TV thing in the game... ooohh don't get me started on that. I didn't have a problem with it at first…
Pay to progress
interesante pero toca ver videos todo el tiempo, todo es pay to win y tiene mucha publicidad digamos "para adultos", muchas son apps de estafa o de citas, ademas de que no avanzas nada en el juego si no ves los anuncios no avanzas nada.
the game is good! but the ADS keeps popping up every 5mins. it ruins the mood, and the best decks always need Ads to get. i tried playing without picking the one with Ads because I can't ever get enough balls to purchase good decks. i…
Major Pay to win. After each loss you lose extra equipment and expects you to spend money to keep certain equipment. Go to the pvp matches. every one I've went against. spent money on the game to be so far ahead than the people who grind…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
game is not worth only ad is coming not the game worth easy level is very hard
has AI generated artwork and has blatant false advertising. the game over all is extremely boring.
I downloaded this game and its nothing like the ad if your going to advertise a game one way but when its downloaded and its different thats wrong let people play the game your advertising
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.
Show 5 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.