Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 987 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 4.0.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.0.1, updated 2026-09-17.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 4.0.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.0.1, updated 2026-09-14.
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.
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
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.
Aggressive ad load
don't waste your time. this game is nothing but ads! it was fun for the first couple of levels but the ads just get more and more aggressive to the point you don't get more than about 45 seconds of gameplay before another ad pops up, it's…
After playing this game overtime, I noticed the ads are excessive and lengthy in time. some of the ads freeze. As a result of the freezing ads, I have to exit the game and start all over. This is upsetting, because I would have used tools…
I have played to level 1840. I've enjoyed it for a fun, somewhat brain stimulating & distracting game, but I've also put up with a ridiculous amount of ads. Just today I reached a point that if I need more moves, instead of getting 5 more…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
This game has a fun concept. However, it only has 2 opportunities to accumulate free points and those don't offer enough to keep playing. Purchasing points and tools is extremely expensive and the ads to gain points or tools are all 60 to…
too many deceptive ads
Game builders should monitor their ad provider because the adware/scareware claiming "your system is infected with 3 viruses" pops up at least once every play. Game play = 5 Failure to police your ad network = 1 Average = 3 7/7/26 ad pops…
Pay to progress
it was fine until around the 100th level it became P2W. literally could not complete the levels unless you paid for the extras or paid for more in-game money. some of the levels prior to that felt pretty repetitive as well.
once you get to a certain point, you have to pay to win or advance
Cannot win without spending money — After about level 50, most puzzles require buying power ups or watching ads for extra moves (even after buying the no ads for $10). Ads are 90 seconds long. You cannot play this game without being…
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
Show 5 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.