Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 463 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.
This analysis describes version 1.0.71 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.0.72, updated 2026-09-30.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 1.0.71, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 1.0.72 · 2026-09-30
No release notes were provided for this version.
What the analysis found
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
This is just another example of deceptive advertising for a game. The idea is for a makeover game, but instead of playing the game, you remove over 80 nails from various objects. The game's content, is the opposite of the AD, is terrible…
So stupid!! Game is not what is advertised. Tons of ads. And did I say how stupid it is... cause its stupid!! Sucks!! Waste of time!! STUPID!!
fake ads
Pay to progress
Pay-to-win! Every similar game I have played allows you to watch a video when stuck to get an item to help or open another space. This game requires in-game cash, which is hard to get with normal game play. Which works well, for them…
As many others have said a pay to win game. Level 5 is not passable without paying for extra boosts. No way to get the in game currency to buy boosts without paying actual money. Most other apps would let you watch some ads to get the…
The game is pay to win. I cannot get past level 5 "Hard". its literally impossible unless you pay for boosters. what a waste of time. spent literally a week trying to pass this level and it refuses to let me pass a certain point without…
Aggressive ad load
So many ads and you can't get ahead in the levels with out spending spending spending. Just wanted to relax but it was so frustrating. Same level for days on end. So sick of the endless ads always 3 plus the pop ups. It's a waste of time…
This game is trash. Too hard to clear levels. You only get 2 boxes and never get the colors you need. No way to earn free power ups and they cost a lot with game cash. Earning enough game cash requires winning or watching an insane amount…
So stupid!! Game is not what is advertised. Tons of ads. And did I say how stupid it is... cause its stupid!! Sucks!! Waste of time!! STUPID!!
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.