The latest version on Google Play did as follows with our test script:

Results:
appId:          io.horizontalsystems.bankwallet
signer:         c1899493e440489178b8748851b72cbed50c282aaa8c03ae236a4652f8c4f27b
apkVersionName: 0.15.0
apkVersionCode: 29
apkHash:        9fad17afdb38e3ec1e38c4e88faddd479e179d2e7004722e6fb0bd440a6ea851

Diff:
Files /tmp/fromPlay_io.horizontalsystems.bankwallet_29/apktool.yml and /tmp/fromBuild_io.horizontalsystems.bankwallet_29/apktool.yml differ

This is what we want to see to consider the app reproducible.

Verdict Explained

Reproducible: The provided Source Code matches the app released on Google Play

The app can be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, security researchers can see this if they care to look. It also means that inside the company engineers can verify that the release manager is releasing the app based on code known to all engineers on the team. A scammer would have to work under the potential eyes of security researchers. He would have to take more effort in hiding any exploit.

"Reproducible" does not mean "verified". There is good reason to believe that security researchers as of today would not detect very blatant backdoors in the public source code before it gets exploited, much less if the attacker takes moderate efforts to hide it.

To understand why some lines of difference are ok and others not one has to consider how app signing works. Android supports currently 3 signing schemes and in version 1 signing the signature is put inside the application file. As the tester must not have the release signing key, those files necessarily are missing or differ from the version on Google Play. The file "apktool.yml" was never part of the app and is generated by the analysis tool "apktool".