Find Nearby Plumbers In Boise City, Idaho

Apollo's professionalism scores are pulled in two directions: a large number of reviewers praise individual technicians as courteous, punctual, and communicative, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews documents repeated no-shows, missed appointment windows, poor internal communication, and unapologetic dispatchers — patterns that recur across multiple years. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with numerous reviewers explicitly calling out flat-rate quotes they considered grossly inflated (e.g., $956 for a $5 PVC elbow, $1,600 for a toilet fill valve, $700+ for a faucet swap), and a lack of labor/parts transparency; only a small number of reviewers described pricing as fair or reasonable. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished correctly and on time, but there are documented cases of abandoned scopes, unresolved callbacks, work that required multiple return visits, and at least one instance where a technician caused significant additional damage that was not remedied. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising specific technicians by name for skill and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe clear technical errors including a misdiagnosed sewer scope and a snake routed into a crawl space causing sewage flooding.

• A cluster of reviews dated 2022-07-22 (three reviews) share the same date and are extremely brief and generic ('They did a great job. Would hire them again.', 'Fantastic Customer Service, very professional. Always come highly recommended.', 'They helped us with our remodel...'). These may be artificially submitted reviews and should be treated with caution.
• Several 5-star reviews contain no specific detail whatsoever (e.g., 'Very good service. Happy with everything done.', 'Great service!', 'On time, done properly and well.', 'nothing'). These add little evidentiary weight and may inflate positive sentiment.
• Review dated 2021-12-17 contains only the word 'nothing' with a 4.5 rating — this review was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• Recency note: Reviews span from 2013 to 2024. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 50%) predate 2020. Older reviews were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024) include both a strong positive and two notable negatives regarding pricing and workmanship quality, suggesting pricing complaints are ongoing.
• Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they appear consistently across 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022, 2023, and 2024, indicating a systemic flat-rate pricing model that many customers find exploitative rather than a one-off issue.
• Communication and scheduling failures (no-shows, missed windows, unreturned calls) are documented across multiple years (2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018), suggesting a recurring operational weakness rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted carefully: individual technician quality varies widely, pricing practices are a documented and recurring concern, and operational/scheduling reliability has been a persistent weakness — prospective customers should request itemized quotes and confirm appointments explicitly.

RSM Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviewers praise individual plumbers like Gilbert, James, Homer, and Mike M for friendliness, punctuality, and going above and beyond, but there are repeated and credible complaints about rude office staff, no-shows, and failure to communicate delays, which significantly drag the score down. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, non-transparent, or far above market rate, including a $40K re-pipe quote versus competitors at $12–14K, $1,100/hour effective labor rates, and a $280 charge for a 7-minute job — these are not isolated incidents. Project completion is above average but not without blemish; most jobs are completed, but at least two reviews describe abandoned or incomplete work, and one describes a job left with more leaks and open holes than when it started. Experience scores reasonably well, with many reviewers citing skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship from specific technicians, though a few reviews note poor problem-solving or incorrect advice on first visits.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Mike M at RSM Plumbing saved us today' appears verbatim twice, dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-11-04. This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Very professional team who did great work' appears verbatim twice, dated 2021-06-10 and 2020-06-22. This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Gil and his son have provided excellent service' appears verbatim twice, dated 2020-06-10 and 2019-09-05. This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• NON-CUSTOMER REVIEW: The review in French by 'David Denadi' is a job application from a plumber in Benin, Africa, not a customer review. It was excluded from all scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Four reviews contain no text (ratings only: 4.0 on 2024-06-09, 5.0 on 2023-06-10, 5.0 on 2020-06-10, 5.0 on 2020-06-10). These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews predate 2022, some going back to 2012–2014. The pricing complaints are consistent across the full timeline (2012–2024), suggesting this is a persistent structural issue rather than an isolated period. Recent reviews (2024–2025) still include both strong praise and a no-show complaint.
• PRICING PATTERN: At least 10 separate reviews across different years explicitly describe pricing as excessive, non-transparent, or far above market. This is a statistically significant and consistent signal, not noise.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least two reviews (2024-06-09 one-star and 2015-03-09 one-star) describe work left incomplete or worse than before. One Christmas Day review also describes a plumber leaving cleanup unfinished.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily — it is the most consistently and explicitly documented concern across the entire review history.

Priority Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise specific technicians (Doug, Paul, Rey, Steve, Chuck) for punctuality, friendliness, technical skill, and quality workmanship — particularly on water softener and filter installations. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes no-shows, broken property that was not disclosed or repaired, overcharging, incomplete work requiring a second plumber, and outright rude or dismissive behavior from ownership. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers call it fair or even a bargain, while others describe feeling overcharged or encountering opaque pricing. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, wrong pipe placement, unresolved callbacks, and work that caused downstream damage. The score reflects this genuine tension between a capable crew on good days and a pattern of serious service failures on bad ones.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review by 'Doug and Betty were great to work with...' (SpringWell install) appears twice with identical text on 2024-05-14, once with a timestamp and once without. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 2024-03-15 review about a Springwell water softener and carbon monoxide leak is nearly identical in language to the 2024-06-09 review. These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. Treated as one unique data point for scoring.
• REVIEW 'SAME AS ABOVE' (2011-10-03) and 'unknown' (2016-01-22) contain no usable content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SPAN OF REVIEWS IS VERY WIDE: Reviews range from 2007 to 2024. Reviews older than 2022 (approximately 35+ reviews) were given reduced weight, as they may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or ownership.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS NOTED: At least one review describes $100,000 in property damage attributed to the company's work, with the company denying responsibility (2019). Another describes employees breaking property and concealing it with silicone (2015). Another describes the owner cursing at customers (2013). These are high-severity flags that meaningfully suppress the project completion and professionalism scores.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2016, 2023, 2019, 2013) describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or failing to follow through on estimates, suggesting a recurring reliability issue.
• MOST RECENT REVIEWS (2024) ARE PREDOMINANTLY POSITIVE AND SPECIFIC: The 2024 reviews appear genuine with specific technician names, job details, and varied language. No fake review pattern detected in recent reviews.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS MAY REFLECT DIFFERENT STAFF OR OWNERSHIP: Several negative reviews reference 'Paul' as owner, while recent positive reviews reference 'Doug' as owner, suggesting possible ownership or staffing changes over time. This context was noted but scores were not adjusted speculatively.

This WW Score is based on 60 reviews spanning 17 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical breadth, but the wide time range, duplicate entries, and several high-severity negative incidents (property damage, no-shows, disputed workmanship) introduce meaningful uncertainty — the score should be treated as a fair average that masks significant variance in customer outcomes.

Master Rooter Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical competence, with many technicians praised for courtesy, efficiency, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite hidden charges, inflated quotes, overpricing relative to market rates, and lack of transparency in estimates. Project completion is mixed, with some jobs completed same-day but others requiring multiple callbacks or incomplete work. The company demonstrates responsiveness and friendly staff, but trust is eroded by pricing practices and occasional follow-through failures.

• PRICING RED FLAG: 31 mentions of pricing issues across 104 reviews (30% of reviews). Patterns include: hidden truck charges not disclosed upfront, quotes 2-3x higher than competitors, unnecessary upsells, inflated parts pricing, and lack of transparency. This is the single largest complaint category.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 with generic praise, minimal specifics, and suspiciously similar language ('amazing,' 'highly recommend,' 'great service'). Several reviews contain only names or are blank ('unknown'). At least 8-10 reviews from this date cluster appear low-confidence.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician performance. Named individuals (Lance, Phil, Christian, Jay, Brian) receive consistent praise; others receive complaints about unprofessionalism, incomplete work, or deceptive practices.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES: Multiple reviews report technicians not returning after initial visit, callbacks not honored, and management unresponsive to complaints.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite aggressive, dismissive, or rude behavior from owner 'Tony' or 'Abe' when customers complained. One review mentions owner threatened customer ('meet in person').
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2024 (many dated 2024-06-09, likely from property management clients). Older reviews (2013-2018) show more balanced criticism. Recent reviews may be skewed by commercial/property management relationships.
• UNLICENSED STAFF ALLEGATION: One review explicitly states company employs unlicensed plumbers.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable but reflects a company with significant structural problems in pricing transparency and consistency. The HIGH confidence is based on 52+ mentions per dimension, but the score is conservative due to persistent pricing complaints (30% of reviews), detected fake review patterns, and documented owner misconduct. Customers should expect strong technical work from experienced technicians but should obtain multiple quotes and carefully verify all charges before authorizing work.

Cloverdale Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and quality workmanship. However, the company is severely hampered by widespread and persistent pricing complaints spanning over a decade. Multiple customers report charges 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work, undisclosed fees, and aggressive billing practices. While recent reviews (2025) show improved service quality, the historical pattern of overcharging and poor pricing transparency significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The company excels operationally but fails on value proposition.

• PRICING CRISIS: 38 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Pattern shows systematic overcharging across all service types (simple repairs charged $200-$500, service calls with minimal work billed at $100-$300). This is the dominant negative theme.
• HISTORICAL PATTERN: Pricing complaints span from 2013-2020 with remarkable consistency in complaint structure (hidden fees, inflated labor charges, trip charges not disclosed upfront). Recent 2025 reviews do not address pricing, suggesting either selection bias or genuine improvement.
• DISCLOSURE FAILURES: Multiple reviews document undisclosed fees (after-hours charges, trip charges, service call fees waived only if work accepted). Customers report being quoted one price and charged another.
• AGGRESSIVE COLLECTIONS: One detailed 2015 review documents harsh collection practices, liens filed, and aggressive phone behavior toward disabled customer.
• RECENT REVIEW CONCENTRATION: 28 of 89 reviews are from June 2025 (all 5-star, all positive, minimal detail). This clustering is unusual and suggests possible review manipulation or recent reputation management campaign. However, these recent reviews lack pricing discussion entirely.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: Multiple reviews document missed appointments and failure to follow up (2022, 2020, 2017).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews praise quality; others document poor workmanship (back flow repairs requiring 3 visits, leaks recurring after repair, shoddy copper line work).
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: The June 2025 cluster shows generic praise ('Great service!!', 'Best plumber in Boise!!'), minimal specificity, and suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings with short text. This warrants reduced confidence in recent positive sentiment.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable but reflects a company in transition: strong operational execution and professionalism are undermined by a severe and well-documented pricing problem spanning over a decade. The recent 2025 review cluster (which is unusually concentrated and shows signs of potential manipulation) does not address pricing, making it impossible to confirm whether overcharging practices have genuinely ceased. Customers should expect excellent service quality but should obtain multiple competitive quotes before engaging, as historical data strongly suggests Cloverdale's pricing is significantly above market rate for equivalent work.

Superior Water and Air shows significant inconsistency across dimensions. While technicians demonstrate solid professionalism and technical expertise when present (72.5 and 75.0 respectively), the company is severely hampered by chronic pricing complaints and project completion failures. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension (45.0), with numerous reviews citing markups of 100-300% above competitor quotes and lack of transparency. Project completion (58.0) is undermined by frequent no-shows, rescheduling failures, and poor follow-through on callbacks. The company's administrative and scheduling processes appear fundamentally broken, creating customer frustration that overshadows individual technician quality.

• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: 42 mentions of overpricing, with documented cases of quotes 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Pattern suggests systematic markup strategy rather than isolated incidents.
• CHRONIC SCHEDULING FAILURES: 55 mentions of no-shows, late arrivals, rescheduling, and missed appointment windows. Multiple reviews describe 5+ rescheduling attempts and customers taking time off work only to be stood up.
• ADMINISTRATIVE BREAKDOWN: Numerous reports of miscommunication between office and field staff, wrong appointment times given to customers, failure to return calls/emails for weeks or months, and poor follow-up on warranty/service issues.
• PAYMENT/BILLING IRREGULARITIES: Multiple instances of payment processing errors discovered months later, surprise charges, and disputes over invoicing. One customer charged $1700 for incomplete work with no resolution after VP promised adjustment.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE APATHY: Pattern of managers promising callbacks that never materialize, dismissive responses to legitimate complaints, and refusal to make things right after errors.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Negative reviews span from 2013-2025, indicating systemic issues are not recent but longstanding. However, recent reviews (2025) show same problems persist.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS CONCENTRATION: Most 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specifics (e.g., 'Good man!!!', 'Skyler and Martin were wonderful!'). Several 5-star reviews with empty text fields suggest possible review manipulation or incomplete submissions. This contrasts sharply with detailed negative reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: While not conclusive, the pattern of extremely brief 5-star reviews with minimal detail, combined with detailed negative reviews, suggests possible review inflation. Recommend treating overall score conservatively.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be trusted as a reliable indicator of company performance, but with the critical caveat that it masks severe operational dysfunction. The company's individual technicians are competent (professionalism and experience scores are respectable), but the business infrastructure—scheduling, billing, customer service, and follow-through—is fundamentally broken. Customers should expect excellent work quality but should prepare for significant frustration with pricing, scheduling reliability, and post-service support. The score reflects a company that excels at execution but fails at customer experience management.