DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Paper.io 2
Voodoo · Games

What’s the catch? Multiple ad networks bundled — measured, backed by SDKs in the app package.

Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.

2 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: High6 signal sources4,394 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 4.38.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 4.38.1, updated 2026-09-24.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 4.37.1 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 4.37.1, updated 2026-09-22.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

The catch list 2

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.

Multiple ad networks bundled
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact d4d5646f8fac…
The package embeds several distinct advertising or mediation SDKs — a stack built for ad volume, not for a single house ad.
What we saw: Bundles 12 distinct ad networks / mediation SDKs: Amazon Publisher Services, AppLovin MAX, BidMachine, Fyber / Digital Turbine Exchange and 8 more
Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
Reported by 613 usersReported by users, not measured — nothing we can inspect could show this either wayview evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Raised by 613 distinct reviewers — 25.5% of the 2,402 reviews scanned on this store leg (App Store).

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 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.

Reported by users: Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Reviewers repeatedly report that the app is not what its advertising showed. We never see the ad creative itself, so nothing we collect can corroborate or refute this — it is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
What we saw: Misleading advertising: raised by 38 distinct reviewers (1.6% of 2402 reviews scanned)
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 6 distinct reviewers (0.2% of 2402 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.

Aggressive ad load

Good game, too many ads. It frequently interrupts my gameplay and the amount of interruptions makes me not want to play it often.

2★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

game is so glitchy and so full of ads. honestly, so frustrating to play.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

theres notbig bad about this game exxept constant ads

4★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

Reports that the ads misrepresent the app

the ads are completely fake

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

So 5 stars! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ — It could lose the ads it does not need them as I’m sure this is not the only game people have on their phone so they have plenty more chances to watch ads instead of in this game because it does not need ads…

5★ · App Store · 2026-10-03

Good game but… — This is a great game but there’s too many ads and the Thor hammer trick on its ad is fake it just gives u a cool skin that’s it make the advertisement true or don’t make it at all😣🥺🥀🙏

4★ · App Store · 2026-10-01

Pay to progress

It’s a good game — This is a good game but it’s more pay to win now than it was last year, there are also too many ads and one of the advertisements used an FNF song which they cannot legally use an FNF song for an advertisement without…

4★ · App Store · 2026-09-24

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells
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. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, 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: 4.38.1 (App Store), 4.37.1 (Google Play)6 independent signals4,394 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure.