Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 432 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 2.91 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.91, updated 2026-09-21.
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 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.
Pay to progress
pay to win game with very slow free progression. needs a better way to clear lower stages , more ways to earn coins, game breaking bugs like no day progression, or rebirthing without actually getting the tears for it so its like a wasted…
good game but I feel like quick hand and other tear upgrades that hit max level i think you should extend the level cap because it's taking a while to get up to the level 30000 also not all of us players are pay to win so you know just…
cool game. a little p2w but all good
Aggressive ad load
Awful game with too many ads, and the ads take 2 minutes of your life every time, its just a waste of time, there are better things to play or do with your life
This game gives you little in the F2P department. Watching commercials is a joke for rewards. You have to watch about 25 commercials to gain enough gold just to hatch an egg for a pet. Nothing you do gives you any kind of feeling toward…
Like the game, has subtle humor. only problem in having with it is the ads aren't loading and I'm unable to aquire more pets or use ads to boost various things.
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.