Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 591 user reviews and the store listing. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
This analysis describes version 1.1.26 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.1.26, updated 2026-09-24.
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 1
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
the closer you get to the goal. the less coins it gives you.when you click claim it still makes you watch a video when you click x2 on reward it makes you watch 2 or 3 videos. so you spend more time watching videos than you do collecting…
Total bs wish I could give it negative stars. Got to watch ads for every single thing you click on. Then watch ads to collect them also. They say you get $20 for downloading which I did not get. I have had this app for 9 days and still…
as others have said countless ads and once you get close to a reward" even more. i got to day 6 of check ins and was brought back to day 1 instead of 7. scam.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Genuinely how do they get away with this? All the ads, the false advertisement. Genuinely illegal.
Their ad said every 1000 steps earns $10 - that's a lie!! It's more like 10 million *coins* are worth $10 and each step is only 1 coin plus you are forced to watch an ad every time you go into this app....
did not receive 20 for download, false advertisement
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Two independent signals are read — user reviews and the store listing — 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.