Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 1,093 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 27.2.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 27.2.1, updated 2026-10-02.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 26.1.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 27.2.0, updated 2026-10-02.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 26.1.1, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 27.2.0 · 2026-10-02
No release notes were provided for this version.
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 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.
Aggressive ad load
Nothing like the ad so another fake ad game. and is excessively bloated with so many ads it becomes unplayable after the tutorial. don't waste your time.
Forced ads at level 125
Would be 2 star, but gets 3 for having no forced ads between all levels. That is nice. That being said, right around level 200, this becomes a pay to win game. It becomes VERY VERY based on putting money into it rather than skill and…
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
This is a fun game, sometimes very difficult, and I have to google to watch the solution a few times to get past a really hard level, but eventually can get it. The biggest issue I have is when I run out of lives and choose to watch an ad…
Not sure if I'm just terrible at this game, but the time limits are too short. it's becoming a pay to win as I'd have to buy power ups to help get through levels. I've gotten stuck on levels for days (limited lives too). if the levels…
I enjoyed the game enough to purchase the ad removal. It wasn't long before it notified me I was out of lives but could watch an ad to get more. Apparently ad-free doesn't mean ad free to this company. BUYER BEWARE BTW - I went ad-free…
Pay to progress
Game has been glitching and lagging since last update. I'm having trouble completing levels because of the lag and sluggish response. Super frustrating since this has become my favorite game. It's challenging without being impossible to…
Would be 2 star, but gets 3 for having no forced ads between all levels. That is nice. That being said, right around level 200, this becomes a pay to win game. It becomes VERY VERY based on putting money into it rather than skill and…
if I could id give a -5star review. this by fas has been the worst puzzle game ive played and ive done well over 1k games. you play to relax, this just builds anger and frustration. most games you watch a ad to buy powerups, well nope you…
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.