Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 412 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.
This analysis describes version 1.0.59 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.0.59, updated 2026-09-29.
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.
Pay to progress
I want to love this game. Most of the levels are made impossible to win without spending money. They used to offer adds to get extra tools. Those are no longer available. The packages are expensive. What you receive for the money you can…
this game is an absolute waste of time. ive been stuck on the same super hard level for 5 days, spent at least 10hrs trying to beat it to no avail and unless I make a purchase there is no way to beat it. no options to watch ads for…
The levels are often impossible to beat without spending money. for example, last level I played, I needed to pick red 3 times in a row. except the only way to get the first 2 of those requests filled, I had to fill 4/5 of the spare spots…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
The levels are often impossible to beat without spending money. for example, last level I played, I needed to pick red 3 times in a row. except the only way to get the first 2 of those requests filled, I had to fill 4/5 of the spare spots…
This is a strange game that doesn't really match the ad nor the explanation? it's like a mix between one of those unraveling games (and not a good one) and one of those real weird kinda false ad games about making a woman "pretty" and…
False advertising! You can only finish a level if you pay for extra space - I've played lvl4 more than 50 times, even asked my husband to try and it is absolutely ridiculous. And I'm not paying R199 for 150 play money, when the slot/extra…
Aggressive ad load
You have to pay for coins and tools etc while also being forced to watch up to a minute long ads after every level. Game itself is good when you're actually able to play.
lots of ads.
Too many ads Response to dev: I just paid to remove ads and immediately had to watch an ad to continue playing. Greedy af. You should be ashamed.
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.