Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 948 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 60.0.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 60.0.0, updated 2026-10-01.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 59.0.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 60.0.0, updated 2026-09-29.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 59.0.1, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 60.0.0 · 2026-09-29
No release notes were provided for this version.
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.
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.
Aggressive ad load
The ads are excessive. The number of free games you can play daily is super low. I love the show, but I can't sit through more than 15 minutes of this game. I simply don't have time to watch through all these ads. My time is valuable. I…
Too many ads that run too long! By the time the ads are done I can't remember what game I was playing! Ads make the game too time consuming. Now the Bubble Witch 3 ad freezes up & won't let you back into the game. I haven't been able to…
once you run out of money you can't play unless you watch 2-3 minute ads for $2,500. the minimum to play a game is $5,000. no thanks. I'll be uninstalling.
Pay to progress
2 stars for music, effects & questions, but having been asked to edit my first review, I play to test my trivia skill. You cannot compete without spending money. The daily goals used to be much easier to attain, now its rarely. Powerups…
Pay-to-win jeopardy: your opponents will always use daily doubles and 2x powerups (which are the most rare to get). The game is programmed so opponents always end up slightly ahead of you and you can't compete without spending premium…
This is comically NOT Jeopardy. you only get to pick 5 answers in each round. You can literally "pay to win" by betting more than your score in final Jeopardy and daily double if you buy gems with real money. it's just a stupid boring…
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 4 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.