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.
App Store
This analysis describes version 1.59.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.59.0, updated 2026-03-31.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.59.1 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 1.59.1, updated 2026-08-31.
What the analysis found
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.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
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.
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
would have given it 5 stars but the ads are ridiculous they're almost overwhelming. I love this game but I'm about ready to uninstall not because of the gameplay but because of all the ads. Like how much money do you need I'm sure the…
The game could be really fun but the glitches and constant ads are super annoying. I was winning a fight, used up boosters each round and all my stand ups. Just in the 3rd round to use my special ability only to have it make my guy punch…
Too many ads considering you can only play three matches every two hours. The game is very pay to play. If you aren't looking to spend money; don't waste your time. The in-game promotions that are ad based don't actually work. I watched…
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
This game is a scam. I been playing for years and dominating. Vivid added or allowed other players to use cheats to beat me. I have filed this complaint several times through the discord channel and I have yet to receive a reply. I have…
great game could easily give 5 stars but, theres a couple things that make no sense. I dont understand what the need is for energy. im loving the game having fun then all of a sudden im out of energy and now I have to wait forever to play…
the graphics is okay no doubt but the annoying thing is the useless energy bar that runs out easily, and how unfortunate the developer must have been to have ads everytime, do you know how annoying it's, any small thing there are already…
Pay to progress
lots of ads few ads try to scam you with Google play store you can't close them. boring stale game play lot of pay to win content
horrible game, pay to win and just unfair on boss fights
it's a great game with great concept but they destroyed it with ads and pay to win system. It looks cheap now
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.