Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 3,871 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 1.14 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.15, updated 2026-09-30.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 1.14, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 1.15 · 2026-09-30
We just gave a whole stretch of levels some extra love and the game feels noticeably smoother for it. Cleaner, fairer levels. A batch of stages got reworked and retuned, so smashing feels crisp and every shot lands the way you'd expect. Same Royal Smash, now with a fresh coat of polish. Jump in and feel the difference!
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.15.446 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.16.477, updated 2026-10-03.
The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 1.15.446, not the version now listed on the store.
Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:
Version 1.16.477 · 2026-10-03
No release notes were provided for this version.
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 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
Way way way too many ads. A constant barrage of ads, most of which you can't bypass making the game almost unplayable.
The game is addicting. But what makes me not want to play it is running out of lives. It's as annoying as too many ads.
Nice and easy until LVL 20. Then unskippable adds begins. Don't recommand.
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
The game is addicting. But what makes me not want to play it is running out of lives. It's as annoying as too many ads.
Too many ads — Too many ads after each level then u gotta watch more when u run out of lives I’m good
Fun but bugs in coins plus too many ads — The number of coins keep showing up as two different amounts so it’s impossible to know how many I have. it’s showing as more than 2500 coins but I can’t spend 900 to continue playing a level then…
Pay to progress
This is a very fun game however you will eventually need to pay to continue. You only get a small amount of coins for each completed level and the power ups are expensive and you can't clear most levels without them.
Stops being fun — Once you reach a certain point this becomes yet another cash grab pay to win. Very stingy on coins and boosters. It’s fun until you get stuck.
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.
Show 6 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.