Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 906 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 1.22.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.22.0, updated 2026-07-31.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 0.12.260720.11-0.15.02 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 0.12.260720.11-0.15.02, updated 2026-07-28.
What the analysis found
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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Ads are fake — Ads give false info. No free pulls for download. Bunch of scammers tbh *edit* they copy and last the same sentences on bad reviews saying they’re looking into it? Total lies. I will never trust these devs again.
False advertising- get a new ad liars — I wasn’t in the mood for a new grind game with a billion ways to purchase, but when the ad said use code VIP777 for 100 free draws I figured it might put me ahead enough to be worth trying. The code…
My favorite idle game — This game is really good, and here are a few reasons why. There is no true winning in this game. Most of us in game agree that the objective of the game is to have fun. Yes, you can buy your way to the top of the…
Pay to progress
Dropped my review to one star because they've managed to wedge in even more pay to win mechanics. The game loves to tell you how you don't need to spend money to compete but if you don't spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars you'll…
Hello. First off, I wanna tell you I've enjoyed playing this game for almost 3 years. The design, The story, the combat. it's an amazing idle game. However. Here in the end game stages it is very toxic amongst my server. This is very much…
It'd be better if the servers worked more than every other day. It isn't technically pay-to-win, but this cash grab is as close as possible without crossing that line. It's a good way to pass the time, but it gets repetitive and stale…
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.