Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,521 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.
App Store
This analysis describes version 1.37.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.37.2, updated 2026-08-22.
Google Play
We cannot tell which version of the app this analysis describes. It was run 2026-10-04 , and the app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.37.2, updated 2026-08-19.
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 4
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
Great game, I actually managed to get to the Ai Egg, but the game having 5 minute ads for a petty reward, like 720 golden eggs, or 2x money boost, and then charging 10 dollars a month for no ads is ridiculous. I'm not even interested in…
Game is fun, but the ads are ridiculous. Way too long, and like 5 clicks to get through them. Sometimes you get 3 in a row, and STILL have to click like 4 times. Really annoying. It has nearly inspired a rage quit several times. I suggest…
I really like the game but some of the optional ads are ridiculous. 2 minutes is crazy for these AI slop ads. 5 stars if the ads weren't so insane.
Pay to progress
complete pay to play and pay to win slop. and even if you pay for that then they just want more purchases on top of that. there's a piggy bank passive income item for $6 you have to buy to use and when you buy it levels up and you have to…
I play it a lot on my bus ride to school and I really enjoy that it runs offline, the rocket ships and fuel mechanics are also really cool, crafting items is neat but I don't like how pay to win it is with silos and golden eggs, over all…
This game is genuinely one of the best tycoon games on mobile store today. The sheer amount of stuff in this is so cool. There are some pay to win aspects. In this game, but it is not in your face. And you basically have no ads…
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 9 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. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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.