What’s the catch? Pay to progress — reported by 43 users.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
App Store
This analysis describes version 11.75.8 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 11.75.8, updated 2026-09-10.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 11.76.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 11.76.0, updated 2026-09-18.
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.
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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.
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
Absolute pay to win trash.
complete trash of a game for a few years it's was actually fun to play but resently the game has gone to complete and utter trash that cod looks like a normal game compared to this the heavy cheating and pay to win system getting…
Totally pay to win, your chances of drawing a mythical fighter in free to play draws is zero! After playing for years I have no hope for improvement in draws and there are a lot better games out now.
Aggressive ad load
Horrible. Non-stop popups. The game is unplayable due to having to close the same multiple popup ads every 20 seconds. if you actually think I am going to spend money on a game that you refuse to let me play and enjoy, you thought wrong…
Predatory in every single sense. Down to the placement of pop ups to waste your resources. Or endless ads when entering or exiting a screen
It's not a bad game, though despite having years the developers have absolutely zero concept of balance and the game lumbers on with the same massive balance issues. They are literally their own worst enemy for ignoring gameplay tuning…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Tons of promo codes you can't use. Plus 99% are for new players and my account is 4 days old and Im not considered a new player. The wizard of Oz event sucks unless you spend $$ to get the lion, Tin man, Scared crow. Game is a money pit…
False advertising! No legendary for new player — The game itself is fine, but customer support is terrible. I didn’t receive the new player, legendary champion, and Support told me to restart on a new device. After doing exactly exactly…
Ad's are a lie — One star is too generous. I saw an ad for Raid Shadow Legends that promised a promo code for new players, and I was actually interested in trying the game out. However, after downloading it and trying to use the…
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
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.
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.