Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,324 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 12.7 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 12.7, updated 2026-09-29.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 21.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 21.2, updated 2026-10-01.
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
for no reason it takes a break half way thru play, ads are overly long . It's just a blah game, with to many ads...won't last long, can't hold interest, ads (short break HAH) in the middle of playing, ads overly long. I've had one game…
could be a very fun game if not for the the random forced adds that pop up every few minutes even in the middle of a round. Edit : thank you for your reply. And rewarding adds are indeed help but these don't have any reward at all just a…
dumb game. WAY TO MANY ADS FOR NO REASON. DONT DOWNLOAD
Pay to progress
Fun but pricey — This game is incredibly fun and addictive but be aware it is pricey. If you make the mistake of paying to remove ads like I did (I wish I could reverse this) you can’t watch ads to earn anything so you have to pay for all…
Money Gimmick — I deleted this and several others. Just done with games that make it impossible to advance without spending money continuously or being flooded with minute long ads at a time for nearly every level. It starts out really…
Worst Game — This is hands down the worst game. You can’t beat a level without spending money. Not ad free and it changes pattern if you start the level over so that it is impossible to win without spending g money
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 9 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.