What’s the catch? Multiple ad networks bundled — measured, backed by SDKs in the app package.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 2026320.0.93860 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2026320.0.93860, updated 2026-09-23.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 2026320.0.93860 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2026320.0.93860, 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 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.
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
It's a fun game, but it takes too long to regenerate energy, and you run out quickly doing tasks, so if you want to keep going, you have to spend money, which takes the fun away. It takes a lot of energy to do one task; for example, if…
this game is pretty good. I like that there are places you can collect energy throughout the game you don't have to wait to keep playing
run out of lives too soon
Aggressive ad load
It is nice to find a game without forced ads.
Great time-passing game but it's a money hungry one. Parents should be advised that the offers are sometimes offered to look like a free offer, but it isn't. This game takes a lot of time to advance due to constant ads to buy your advance.
Update is awful Beaver tree is stupid 11/2024-12/2024 — The new update ruined longtime paying devoted players/customers islands and game experience. So many people are upset,disappointed & discouraged with the developers and changes. I’ve…
Pay to progress
This game was so fun to begin with - but the more you progress the more impossible it becomes to advance without spending money...A LOT of money. Then the more money you spend, you pay MORE and get less. I thought the offer rewards on…
Fun, but very annoying. it is very difficult to obtain building supplies and way to costly to expend energy. so, if you don't want to spend money to advance be prepared for lots of aggravation and down time!
Another shiny pay to win — Higher levels need money. They lure you in for a while. I played 4 years and then it got nuts. Now it’s all greed and no real human customer support. Update: good luck getting them to delete your account.
What this app sells
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.