Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,052 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 1.17.5 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.17.5, updated 2026-10-02.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 17.5.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 17.5.0, updated 2026-10-02.
What the analysis found
The catch list 2
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
Having to tap around 3 times to close an ad is low key incredible I think also ads after each level is kind of too much too. It is intrusive. Some studios just can't understand how people react to ads, grasping the reality of the…
Ok, I understand ads but get a grip. I installed this game yesterday, had a few ads and that was ok. Just before I quit playing it asked me to rate the game, I would have given it 5 stars then. But today I have been bombarded with ads, 1…
started out fine, only complaint was the "energy" running out, and taking too long to refill. Watching adds for extra was fine, no complaints there. BUT, once the first "timeline" ended and moved to second, it changed to a forced add…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Terrible nothing like the AD , totally different gameplay, totally different graphics and a bunch of fake reviews.
game is nothing like the ad....
this game is NOTHING line the ads. it's a completely different game that of slow and boring. very misleading ad
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
started out fine, only complaint was the "energy" running out, and taking too long to refill. Watching adds for extra was fine, no complaints there. BUT, once the first "timeline" ended and moved to second, it changed to a forced add…
Great Design. Horrible Execution. Devs care more about getting money than the actual game. You get ONE ENERGY per HOUR. Meaning you can only play one quick level every hour, unless you pay for energy on a mobile game. Not to mention…
For clarity I'm around the level 1200 mark and it's definitely got to the point of PAY TO WIN, you can't get stronger without gems or rare/immortal champions and you can only access them by winning arena and other events but you can only…
Pay to progress
For clarity I'm around the level 1200 mark and it's definitely got to the point of PAY TO WIN, you can't get stronger without gems or rare/immortal champions and you can only access them by winning arena and other events but you can only…
Requires internet to be played. Then they made it pay to win.
not the game in the add pay to win
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.