Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 425 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 2.1.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.1.5, updated 2026-08-04.
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.
Aggressive ad load
The ads ruin it. It's not so much the ads its how long the ads are 2 min is way too long. Edit- Although the ads especially the ones over 30 secs suck and despite the bugs customer service is top notch! Literally the fastest response time…
the game is just an ad watching simulator, everything you do requires you to watch 30 to 90 second ads which is ridiculous. You'll be watching more ads than you will playing. And the events are terrible, you're spammed with purchase packs…
Fairly typical idler game - see numbers go up, but: I downloaded the game to play on an airplane as it advertised itself as an offline game. After launching the game it turned out to be not true. Yes it has offline progression, but you…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
ADS NOT THE SAME AS GAMEPLAY. FALSE ADVERTISING. DELETED & REPORTED!!!!!!!! FORCED ADS FORCED ADS FORCED ADS FORCED ADS FORCED ADS FORCED ADS ADS NOT THE SAME AS GAMEPLAY. FALSE ADVERTISING. DELETED & REPORTED!!!!!!!!FORCED ADS FORCED ADS…
FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS!!!!
scam! Nothing like the adds.
Pay to progress
The game is fun, but it is very much a p2w game. You can watch as many ads as you want, but 90% of the time, the game will restart and you won't get the reward from watching the ad or the purchase that you made. I've requested refunds for…
The constant need to be on, pay money to win anything, and the game issues is driving away your customers. Our clan is rated at 2.96 billion and we keep going up against the #2 clan in the world at over 5 billion. Your game is broken…
An amazing game until recently. would have to spend around £100 to get to the next level, completely pay to win with packages with the new system. You can't play (slow) you have to pay to play. shame as I really enjoyed this game up until…
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.