Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 479 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 3.0.25 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 3.0.25, updated 2026-10-01.
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
I don't think I would even call this a game. You sit and wait for the next ad bonus so that you can buy the next thing you can't afford yet. There are "PvP" tournaments, they are pay to win. The app doesn't work while idle, or the two…
trash absolutely trash no question pay to win no reward for adds and just boring would not recommend a 5 year old to play this
this game looks slick but the resource cost scaling pushes this game into pay to win. the mechanics are such that resource costs escalate way faster than the player can produce. The 2 hrs of idol time is broken. you cannot even play…
Aggressive ad load
I don't think I would even call this a game. You sit and wait for the next ad bonus so that you can buy the next thing you can't afford yet. There are "PvP" tournaments, they are pay to win. The app doesn't work while idle, or the two…
I've been playing this game since it first came out in 2019 and it has genuinely been one of my favorite mobile games of all time. The progression is a bit slow, but almost all of the game mechanics and everything is extremely well made…
The game is enjoyable, but I was wondering why I was progressing so slowly. Turns out, despite upgrading my cargo, each trip still only carries a tiny amount of resources. At level 20 cargo, I'm supposed to be bringing 127 copper per…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read — user reviews — and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports 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.