We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 2.0.3 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.0.3, updated 2026-08-25.
What the analysis found
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.
Aggressive ad load
Ai ads — Liked it but the ai ads ruined it for me
addicting lol — good mix of playing for free and having fun and choice of watching ads for upgrades and free stuff, even in game currency. doesn’t force you to watch ads and you still have a blast
The adds they have on other games are too much — Every add on the other games I play opens a web browser link that opens into the App Store instead of just the pop up store. Super annoying and will not be playing this game anymore because…
Pay to progress
Actually no required ads — One of the first games I’ve played that ads are 100% optional. It’s nice to log in and do your thing without having a forced add everything. Is it pay to win…kinda. If you want the good stuff you have to pay…
Odds are rigged. — I’ve played it for a while now. At the beginning you progress quite rapidly, but they you hit a paywall really hard. Also, the new update increases the difficulty curve since you now get a change that your equipment you…
Extremely P2W after floor 9 — Game is fantastic and fun but once you hit floor 9 you won’t make any progress unless you spend money. The rewards are very little for completing a level so it’s almost pointless replaying old levels. Great…
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.