Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,208 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 2.12.1761 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.12.1761, updated 2026-09-27.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 2.12.1761 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.12.1761, updated 2026-09-27.
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 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.
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
the recharge time is ridiculous. 1 minute 20 seconds per energy with a max of 100. mid game items take 5 each. so I get to play for 5 minutes at a time. and if you accidentally hit an item again after you run out of energy 3 pop-up appear…
This game is highly addictive and satisfying to play once you get past all the ads of mini games and optional purchases they have available. Then you get about 15 minutes of play until you run out of energy and have to watch ads or make a…
It's your typical merge game, with all the caveats that comes with that: starts out easy to accomplish orders and gets quickly worse, to the point where you need multiple top ups of energy and tens or hundreds of merges before you get the…
Aggressive ad load
Played to level 40 to earn $75. It's 100% a money grab. Not fun really. You are bombarded with pop up ads to buy more gems. It's actually a very annoying game and I literally had to be paid to play it. Anyone earning the $75 to reach…
too many ads
Too many ads they juat keep popping up because they want you to buy coins and gems
Pay to progress
Update. This game has gotten worse. It is impossible to play now without spending real money, the creators greed is spiralling out of control. They make it extremely addictive and far to easy to continuously spend. Google needs to look…
love the game but you can't get anything done in it if you aren't willing to spend a lot of money everyday to progress smh
Impossible to advance without spending money on energy. What I would consider improvements to the game are there for weeks then revert back. Coins were worth 100x for a while then changed back. Daily challenge was made obtainable by…
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.
Show 10 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.