DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Scrambly: Earn Money Walking
Scrambly · Health & Fitness

We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.

Nothing unfair corroborated · unauditedConfidence: High3 signal sources803 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-05
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 0.20.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 0.20.1, updated 2026-09-29.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

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.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Aggressive ad load: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (0.6% of 803 reviews scanned)
Reported by users: Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Reviewers repeatedly report that the app is not what its advertising showed. We never see the ad creative itself, so nothing we collect can corroborate or refute this — it is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
What we saw: Misleading advertising: raised by 9 distinct reviewers (1.1% of 803 reviews scanned)

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

10,000 steps = $1.00 that’s what you get only if you meet milestone — I have tried several games now and have had problems with at least two of them not to mention that the app wouldn’t count steps. Takes forever for them to do anything…

5★ · App Store · 2026-09-17

Game scamming — I have tried several games now and have had problems with at least two of them not to mention that the app wouldn’t count steps. Takes forever for them to do anything. I have just deleted a game Arrows because it won’t…

1★ · App Store · 2026-09-12

Not a walking app — I thought sure the thresholds to make money walking would be high. Lucky to earn 8 cents a day. That’s fine. The problem is earning is contingent on game playing or other pay offers. The milestones become difficult and…

2★ · App Store · 2026-08-16

Reports that the ads misrepresent the app

Trash — This site is trash for your first two dollars. You only need 1000 coins then when you get to your third dollar you need 120 coins who knows what the next dollars require because after I withdrew three whole dollars they advised me…

1★ · App Store · 2026-09-27

False Advertising — While walking the app has requested I pay for a upgrade to use the app. No i haven’t been paid and yes I am following the steps . Unless you plan to pay it’s not worth it

1★ · App Store · 2026-09-22

SCAM — False advertising at its finest. The ads claim it scans for previous games played to give you credit, it does not. Instead, you have to constantly download and delete endless new games just to make pennies. Earning a few dollars…

1★ · App Store · 2026-09-20

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 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.

Subscriptions2
Scrambly Premium MonthlyMonthly$7.99
Scrambly Premium AnnualYearly$79.99

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

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.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-05 Version analyzed: 0.20.13 independent signals803 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.