Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 1,009 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 4.0.240 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.0.240, updated 2026-09-12.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 7.0.288 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.0.288, updated 2026-09-22.
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 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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
a bit boring. very quickly, you go from being able to build and research several things in succession to it taking over a day to upgrade a single building. but, to upgrade a building, you've got to upgrade a bunch of others. you can join…
I used to play this game a lot. Got up to HQ 35 before the numbers got insane enough that it became a second job. I only re-installed it to leave a review because I keep seeing in game ads from another game that say "guys this game is…
bait and switch. game shows like cover for 5 minutes. after that it's nothing like it. I started playing the game for a rewards program. the developer then refused to pay out once I met their requirements. scam scam scam. even spent money…
Pay to progress
its a pay to win game if you want to grow quickly or earn any of the cool stuff from events. I've been playing 4 years, I'm decent but not a big player unfortunately, because I won't spend a fortune to advance, i wish things weren't so…
It is heavily pay to win the game. Unless you're willing to pay hundreds even thousands of dollars to compete you won't find yourself winning competition and progressing. BTW, although it is rated TEEN, Adults are dominating the…
its a so so game, it gets overwhelming with everything going on, my problem is something simple. how is the fighting style system useful when for example, the opponent has blue and green , you need green and red to fight against it. and…
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.