Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 821 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 1.12.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.12.0, updated 2026-09-09.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.14.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.14.0, updated 2026-10-01.
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.
Aggressive ad load
pay to play. maybe just call levels 1-49 your "free trial" because if you make it there and haven't saved up your coins to be able to get the power up tools you just cant finish it without paying real money to get the coins for them. now…
Well, here we have another play-between-ads app. The good news? The levels are usually longer than the ads. They say that ads keep the game free. The truth is that the game is full of ads because they don't have the imagination to create…
too many ads and I'm pretty sure level 170 is actually near impossible without spending money... still stuck on it, so I don't even know if it's possible to beat. I do know it's the first level I've ever not been able to complete and I…
Pay to progress
Not a great experience so far. Game has a habit of being a pay-to-win kind of game. Which is ironic, considering I found this game in Scrambly. The super hard and hard levels have a strategy that doesn't make sense. I'm constantly drawing…
Really frustrating that some levels are just impossible without power ups. Definitely feels like you are being pushed to have to spend money to buy things in order to progress through. I'd rather just uninstall and find another game than…
played 40 levels of this and got stuck on 40. this really is designed pay to win. at least add in a option to watch ads for coins or something cause just only watching ads for lives is terrible mechanics. or a login daily gift thing like…
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.