Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,053 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 1.1.154 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.1.154, updated 2026-09-24.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.1.155.240733 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.1.155.240733, updated 2026-09-16.
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 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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Yet another game that is absolutely nothing like the ads. This game is a standard 4x city builder set on a space ship. It doesn't even have a 3rd dimension, your ship is one deck and space is 2d. It is insanely predatory. Advancement all…
Misleading ads. Gameplay not as advertised, and as such no more than 2 stars.
The advertisements are fake. The actual gameplay is a slow rooms-builder, very different from the Ads show!! Take action: leave them 1 star rating and report their Ads as Misleading or Deceptive everywhere you see them on social media or…
Pay to progress
cool that there is a game based in the foundation universe. Sadly that is all that is good about this game it's just another cash grab that requires you spend your life in the game or pay to win which is always the case with this style of…
Yet another base builder, infinite grind, open pvp, usual stuff, really nothing original about it. What this game does better than the average is telling a story, or at least does try. Unfortunately no amount of good story telling can…
Just another skin on just another p2w build and battle. The interface is really terrible, too complicated, too easy to hit the wrong command, and many features you will never be able to find. Zooming hides all the menus you need, except…
What this app sells
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.