DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Plants vs. Zombies™
Electronic Arts · 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 sources1,766 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-05
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 3.18.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 3.18.0, updated 2026-08-25.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 3.18.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 3.18.0, updated 2026-08-13.

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 eb5d588bcd37…
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 16 distinct ad networks / mediation SDKs: Amazon Publisher Services, AppLovin MAX, BidMachine, Chartboost and 12 more
Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
Reported by 148 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 148 distinct reviewers — 19.0% of the 780 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 4

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.

In the app's own text: Hard to cancel
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact eb5d588bcd37…
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Sells a subscription in-app but ships no cancel or manage-subscription text of its own, leaving the store's settings as the only exit
From the store listing: Loot boxes with no stated odds
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the store listing.view evidence
The app sells randomised rewards — crates, chests, packs, pulls — and states no drop rates or odds anywhere in its own text, so what the money buys is unknowable before paying.
What we saw: The store lists 1 randomised-reward purchase ("Sunflower's Golden Chest") and the app's own text states no drop rates or odds
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 (0.6% of 986 reviews scanned)
Reported by users: Paywall blocks the basics
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
What we saw: Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (0.5% of 986 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

Don't make me watch ads when I upgraded to no ads years ago. the fact that they will do nothing about it shows how little they care once they have your money. dont do them a favor by watching ads. they want to take from you, and wont help

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-03

ever since they shoved and pumped all these ads into this game, I'd rather play replanted! The game shoves so many ads into your face, to the point where you can only play five levels without internet (yes, that is a real update), and…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-30

I bought this game years ago. Why tf am I getting ads?! I paid to not have ads on this game, but there is an ad after EVERY SINGLE ROUND, ads that require me to open the play store app before I can return to the game! Why tf is this the…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-28

Pay to progress

Boy, it has changed. — This game used to be good, actually fun, now it’s just pushing for every last penny it can get. It sickens me of this games greed, watching 3 ads every level, paying REAL MONEY to gain the ability to just SPEED UP…

1★ · App Store · 2026-09-27

Review — To pay to win

1★ · App Store · 2026-09-04

Paywall blocks the basics

I payed for the ad free version but ea won't update the game to work on my new phone. They're trying to force me to play with ads so I gave them 1 star and uninstalled.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-28

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 packs3
Dr. Zomboss’ Piggy BankPack$1.99
Sunflower's Golden ChestPack$0.99
Whirly-Blurry Speed Up BundlePack$4.99
Show 7 more purchases we couldn’t categorise

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

Ads FreeTerm not stated$2.99
Stinky's Secret StashTerm not stated$0.99
Digger's Diamond MineTerm not stated$3.99
Marigold's Coin PotTerm not stated$0.99
Crazy Dave's Lost WalletTerm not stated$0.99
Whirly-Blurry Speed Up StashTerm not stated$3.99
Craaazy Speed Up StashTerm not stated$5.99
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. 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 2026-10-05 Version analyzed: 3.18.0 (App Store), 3.18.0 (Google Play)6 independent signals1,766 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.