What’s the catch? Nothing we could corroborate against this app.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 1.29 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.29, updated 2026-09-24.
What the analysis found
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
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.
Price keeps rising
Super fun but…. — I’m on level 1426, I’m addicted. But the recent update that increased the cost for power ups is crazy. Considering you only get 40 coins (80 if you watch an ad, but it forces an ad regardless) for beating a level, you’d…
Wtf — Prices went up in game. Game was barely worth having to start with. Constant ads you are forced to watch. Hardly gives any bonuses. You don’t get hardly any money for completing levels. And now they’re charging more? No thank you.
Make it make sense — What’s the point in raising the price of the special items and not raising the game winning coins? Now, I’m going to delete the game. It makes no sense. I thought the object is to make the game better or more fun to…
Aggressive ad load
Good but very stingy with rewards — I think the title says it all. Another reviewer had an excellent point: you should get more coins after finishing an Extreme level. They make you watch a crazy amount of ads for only 900 coins and this…
forced ads, pay to speed up — 3x speed should be the base default, and should not have to “pay” to boost the speed with a time limit. 100x would be ok because this game is like watching paint dry
Fun but too many ads — This is a fun game, but after a certain level, there is an ad after every level. And the ads are long. I will unfortunately have to delete this.
Pay to progress
Fun but difficulty isn't balanced — I enjoyed this game a lot and get lots of satisfaction from figuring a level out after a few tries, but as I've moved past the 700-levels it seems like they are almost all hard or extreme now. It's not…
Pay to Win — Puzzle 147 is not possible without spending coins. Bye.
Pay to win — Currently level 192, game is locked forcing you to make moves that won’t let you complete the puzzle. Definitely need to buy to get any higher just an FYI encase you get this far on free to play. Also playable on airplane…
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.