Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 1,374 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 1.60.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.60.0, updated 2026-09-29.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.60.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.60.0, updated 2026-09-28.
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
so now you have taken away getting energy from watching ads. what have you done are you going to have forced ads now. where you have to watch ads with no rewards
This game launched for the first time with an unskippable ad about another game. Why?
I love playing Merge Cooking. I would even set an alarm so I would remember to collect my daily video bonuses. I played every day until about 72 hours ago. there's a very annoying pop-up ad that comes randomly. it is very annoying. it is…
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
It takes forever to complete anything. rewards are few and far between. hard to earn gems and energy without spending money. I like the actual game it's self but it encourages you to spend just to progress & as you get further into the…
Used to be a five-star. I willingly sat through ads just to get energy and would come to check in just to refill, sometimes I would even save up my energy so that I would have a longer spurt of gameplay in one session. now they limit the…
I used to love this game when I didn't have to pay for everything. now instead of watching ads for energy or to boost something i eather have to wait a day or buy something its fun until I gotta wait 24 hours for full energy. I'd rather…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
scam and fake advertisement
Nothing like the cake slices game advertised, not the same design, strategy either. This is more like a badly designed candy crush. Unclear instructions as well. I don't understand what's the point advertising a game that is different…
So tired of games that are NOTHING like the ad and sample
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.