Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 413 user reviews. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 1.2.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.2.5, updated 2026-05-21.
What the analysis found
One source only â 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.
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
honestly its a nice game but the ads ruin it so we tried buying the ad free version for 270 rupees but after we bought it it still showed us advertisements. I would have loved the app and left a five star review but now this angers me andâŚ
Ads. So many ads. There are better apps of this game with far less and less intrusive ads.
way too much advertising, can't exit it opens the link.
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. One independent signal is read â user reviews â and each candidate finding is filed under the source that supports it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence â 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 â 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 âReported by N usersâ, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that chargeâs own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a modelâs confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0â99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument â 44.7% of every pair of apps tied â and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an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 âNot assessedâ because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those â and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.