Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 1,069 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 0.4.465 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 0.4.465, updated 2026-09-21.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 0.5.451 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 0.5.451, updated 2026-09-17.
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.
Pay to progress
it's ok. it was interesting in the beginning but it's heavily pay to win if you're a F2p player you never will be as strong as someone who swipes their card. there should be limitations on bigger players attacking low lv newbies but there…
Game is alright. Pay to win as all hell and super buggy. The real issue seems to be the player base. Joined a server, everyone is a smurf, buys a bunch of stuff, then leave at the smallest issue and now the server is dead. Seems like it's…
I've played this game for over a year, it's been great made some good friends spent a bit of money as support of such game which I don't usually mind but it is quite a bit of money more than 2 K and when I tried contacting support I…
Aggressive ad load
18 ads before the game play even started..uninstalled complete waste of time also 2 ads top left top right that cant be removed.. all the other reviews are fake btw..
the game is boring and has so many ads and is very pay to win that is so annoying
👎🏼 — Way to many pop up ads opening the game
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
it was fun... and I decided based on being offered a deal for a Pal that was max level to support the game. Turns out it was false advertisement, got a base level Pal instead, which I would not have paid for with that rarity. told there…
Palmon Survival utilizes a classic "bait-and-switch" mobile marketing strategy. It hooks players with cute monster-collecting and survival crafting, only to seamlessly pivot into a standard pay-to-win 4X strategy game once the early…
fake game. fake advertisement. don't download
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.