Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 641 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 2.0.83 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.0.83, updated 2026-09-17.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 2.0.102 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.0.102, updated 2026-09-30.
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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
You should be familiar with the constant fake ads mobile games spew at you. legend of mushroom takes it a step further by copying other fake ads verbatim and just swapping out the artwork. I'm not sure who they think they're fooling…
False advertisement. Every add i saw said once downloaded, you get a bunch of free draws. I got no such thing.
The game is okay, full of ads unless you pay. ads are wildly misleading. Entertaining for a while, but offers little actual gameplay for the main game. It's okay. EDIT: I don't need help. Your ads are just lies. also stop giving me ads, I…
Pay to progress
Never before have I seen a more egregiously pay-to-win game than this game, and for gameplay that does not deserve it in the slightest. Everywhere you look, it wants to you to buy something, not even to get ahead in the game, but just to…
I love the game. Everything's great about it with minimal ads, and everything in the base game outside of events is achievable. the only issue is have with the game is that any event (especially collab events) are almost always pay to…
Every aspect of this game is designed to get you to spend money. Once you realize that after a month, you will quit. If you don't, everyone else will quit and you will be playing with the 20 other people who spend $200 a month. There is…
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.