We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 24.7.57 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 24.7.57, updated 2026-09-08.
What the analysis found
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.
Price keeps rising
None More — I’ve had Robokiller for a while now. I first got a subscription in early 2019 for $3.99 a month, which felt like a bargain!! In 2024, they increased the price to $5.99, which also felt like a fairly reasonable price, but the…
Price increased from $8 to $13, really? No thanks. — This is enough of a bump in price for me to cancel and move to their competitor. I’ve liked their service but even at $8 a month I thought it was expensive. Increasing your price by 63%…
Saves being bothered spam — RoboKiller is quite creative and it’s responses to spam calls and blocking unnecessary callers saving me time and effort. They know when to let something important go through even if it’s not on your contact…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Bait-and-Switch Pricing — If pricing on your website is $4.99/mo or $39.99/yr why does the app want $7.99/wk or $129.99/yr? This makes your actual monthly cost almost 7x the published cost, and a yearly plan more than twice as much…
False advertising? — In-App rates listed at $8/mo or $90/yr, but actual rates after downloading app are $8/WEEK & $130/year! Was willing to give it a try for the listed price, but not for the actual price.
Bait and switch pricing — Quoted 79.99/yr charged 117.99
Tracking and data collection concerns
MADE IT WORSE — I got this app because I had applied for a personal loan and was looking for new car insurance and was getting spam calls and texts. I now have spammers blowing up my phone every 30-90 seconds making my phone number…
Stopped working — Latest update broke app unable to continue to enroll phone again. Also I agree with others about them selling info. Since having this my spam calls have increased 20x.
They sell your information — I signed up with these guys just to try it because I was getting 2 to 3 loan spam calls a day. About three days after I signed up I started getting 10 to 15 calls from all kinds of different numbers. I’m…
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.