DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Magic: The Gathering Arena
Wizards of the Coast · Games

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-06 from 887 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.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: High3 signal sources887 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 2026.63.10 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 2026.63.10, updated 2026-09-29.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 2026.63.0.7095 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 2026.63.10.7164, updated 2026-09-25.

The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 2026.63.0.7095, not the version now listed on the store.

Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:

Version 2026.63.10.7164 · 2026-09-25

No release notes were provided for this version.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Context 1

Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.

Cheapest and priciest options are far apart
MeasuredPublished as context — deliberately not a charge · from the store listingview evidence
The disclosed in-app purchases span an unusually wide price range. Published as context: the cheapest and priciest items may be different kinds of product entirely, so the spread alone deducts nothing.
What we saw: In-app purchases run from USD 4.99 to USD 99.99 — a 20x spread across 10 items

Positive evidence 1

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
What we saw: The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

One source only — shown, not confirmed 1

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.

Reported by users: Pay to progress
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
What we saw: Pay to progress: raised by 17 distinct reviewers (2.2% of 787 reviews scanned)

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

2026 still pay to win... When they want you to buy cards, they'll put you up against the only counter to your deck over and over again until you get sick of it because everybody just copies someone else's cookie cutter meta deck. it gets…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-26

Save yourself the anger and do not download this garbage. The wannabe's of the coast have ruined MTG by removing the real life aspect of playing against anyone and instead algorithm match you into only losing matches making you think you…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-17

absolutely trash. getting worse and worse. continuously banning cards that don't support the cards people are paying money for. strip mine? pathetic. I can't upload more than 4 cards from my real deck because they refuse to be fair with…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-27

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 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.

One-off packs8
3,400 GemsPack$19.99
1,600 GemsPack$9.99
750 GemsPack$4.99
9,200 GemsPack$49.99
20,000 GemsPack$99.99
Starter BundlePack$4.99
Adventurer BundlePack$14.99
Pre-order: Pack BundlePack$49.99
Show 2 more purchases we couldn’t categorise

These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.

4x Rare WildcardsTerm not stated$9.99
4x Mythic WildcardsTerm not stated$19.99
This list is cut off. Apple shows at most 10 in-app purchases, and this app is at the limit — so it very likely sells more than we can see.
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 2026.63.10 (App Store), 2026.63.0.7095 (Google Play)3 independent signals887 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.