Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,339 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 1.0.67 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.0.67, updated 2026-09-30.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 1.0.81 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.0.81, updated 2026-09-30.
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 3
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
nothing like the ads, simple click and play with tons and tons of ads as well as daily events that require you to spend money to participate. if you got lured in by the cute and quirky ads of different TV characters, DO NOT DOWNLOAD bc…
Having free SSR flowers that is too unreachable and trapping players to pay?? I watched 50 ads and spent thousand diamons for that flower. YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYONE!
nothing like the ads. I have been seeing lots of ads for this game where you get to actually design bouquets. I finally installed it, and its basically a re-skij of every other money sink mobile game. not worth the time it takes to install.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Looks nothing like the ad. edit: developer response is not up to par
nothing like the ads, simple click and play with tons and tons of ads as well as daily events that require you to spend money to participate. if you got lured in by the cute and quirky ads of different TV characters, DO NOT DOWNLOAD bc…
misleading game design not like depicted in advertisement. go figures.
Pay to progress
have been playing for many months, this game is an absolute money grab pay to win game, don't be fooled unless you want to spend over 100€ a month to be relevant in this game. Don't answer me with "contact customer service" I have. We all…
The game is enjoyable so far but does seem like a pay to win which is a shame. Looks like you can manage without having to pay as you do receive a decent amount of diamonds to buy missing items, but definitely slow going, especial when…
This game is pay to win. Other players jokingly call it The Costly Florist. Outside of how expensive it gets, the gameplay is enjoyable. Guilds are essential, and many have strict guidelines to join & stay in. It can feel like a job, so…
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.