Find Nearby Plumbers In Coeur D'Alene, Idaho

All Ways Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and mostly positive review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. Project completion scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by three serious negative reviews: one describing a code violation that caused flooding and toxic mold with the contractor refusing to remedy the work, one describing workers who failed to diagnose the actual problem and performed unnecessary work, and one describing a technician who avoided the main issue and fixed a minor one instead. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but one reviewer reported being charged $633 for a faucet replacement with no upfront quote, and another noted pricing felt high — these pull the pricing score below the otherwise positive consensus. Experience scores well based on numerous specific mentions of technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the diagnostic failures in the negative reviews temper this score.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (1-star, 2023-03-29) describes a code violation by 'Zachary Szabo' causing flooding, two types of toxic mold, inability to live in the home for 4+ months, and the contractor being held responsible by the State Examiners Board while refusing to remedy the work. This is a significant workmanship and accountability failure that materially impacts the project_completion and experience scores.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: Two additional reviews (2024-10-17 and 2012-01-03) describe technicians who failed to diagnose or address the actual problem, performing unnecessary or minor work instead. This is a pattern worth noting.
• NO-QUOTE FLAG: One reviewer (2021-01-21) reported being charged $633 with no upfront price quote provided, only receiving an invoice after the fact. This is a transparency concern for the pricing dimension.
• BEHAVIOR FLAG: One 1-star review (2021-05-08) describes rude and disrespectful behavior from a driver of the company van in a parking lot. While not a service quality issue, it reflects on professionalism.
• BLANK/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Four reviews contained no text (only a rating), including two from 2016 and one from 2024. These were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. Reviews from 2009–2013 reference different named technicians (Jake, Daryl, Zac/Zachary) and may reflect a different era or staffing of the business. The serious code-violation complaint also references 'Zachary Szabo,' suggesting possible past association with the business.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. The review corpus is large, spans many years, references specific technician names, job types, and situational details. No significant pattern of identical phrasing or suspiciously generic content detected. Confidence in authenticity is high.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and temporally diverse review set and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the presence of one serious unresolved code-violation complaint with documented regulatory involvement and two additional incomplete-work complaints means prospective customers should weigh these outliers carefully, particularly for complex or high-stakes plumbing projects.

DC Sprinkler demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and communication. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple customers explicitly highlighting affordability and fair costs compared to competitors. Project completion is solid, with evidence of timely work and follow-through on maintenance scheduling and system installations. Technical expertise is evident in system design, efficiency improvements, and problem-solving. However, the review pool is small (6 total) and heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings with limited critical detail, which moderates overall confidence.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical commentary—this uniformity is atypical and suggests potential selection bias or incomplete review representation.
• Reviews are dated 2018–2021, with the most recent being May 2021 (3+ years old). No recent reviews from past 12 months limits ability to assess current service quality.
• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical reliability; scores should be treated as preliminary.
• Generic praise language appears in multiple reviews ('great,' 'friendly,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') without specific technical details in some cases, though a few reviews do provide concrete examples (system installation, backflow testing, efficiency improvements).

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, age of reviews, and absence of any critical feedback; while the data available is positive and consistent, a larger and more recent review pool would be needed to establish high confidence in this rating.

Marc demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with explicit mentions of friendly demeanor, courteous communication, responsiveness (coming out in difficult weather conditions), and professional attitude. Pricing is mentioned positively in one review as 'fairly priced,' though limited data prevents a robust assessment. Project completion is evidenced by two reviews describing completed work (system replacement, backflow/valve installation) with attention to quality. Experience is reflected in technical competence and problem-solving ability, though mentions are sparse. The score is constrained by the small sample size (3 reviews) and limited mention counts across most dimensions.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no negative feedback or critical perspective provided
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention ('fairly priced') — insufficient data for confident assessment
• Most recent review is from July 2023 (approximately 1.5+ years old); no recent reviews to assess current performance
• Generic praise language ('best,' 'phenomenal,' 'highly recommended') without specific technical details in some reviews raises minor concern about depth of feedback

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and absence of any critical or negative feedback, which limits the ability to assess true performance variance and reliability. A minimum of 8–10 reviews with mixed ratings would be needed to establish HIGH confidence in this contractor's overall score.

Drain Masters demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual service, friendly technicians, and clear communication across 187 mentions. Project completion is solid at 81.0, with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, though some no-show incidents and warranty disputes appear in negative reviews. Experience scores well at 80.5, reflecting skilled technicians and effective problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0 across 89 mentions, with recurring complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, upselling, and quotes that don't match final bills. This pricing concern substantially impacts the overall WW Score despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees, and significant discrepancies between quoted and final prices. Examples include $250 quoted vs $573 charged, $2200 for water heater installation, and $400+ diagnostic fees. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Approximately 35 one-star and two-star reviews detail serious issues including flood damage from improper installation, unlicensed technicians, no-shows to scheduled appointments (multiple instances), and refusal to honor warranties. Several reviews mention BBB complaints and legal threats.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple locations (Santa Barbara, San Jose, Anchorage, Daytona, Modesto, Sacramento, St. Louis, etc.), suggesting either multiple franchises or locations under the same name. Some reviews explicitly warn about confusion between different Drain Masters companies.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews report warranty claims denied or disputed, with customers charged for follow-up visits on the same issue within warranty period.
• LICENSING CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews mention unlicensed or out-of-state licensed technicians performing work, raising legal and safety questions.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 reviews document scheduled appointments with no-shows and no communication, contradicting the strong professionalism scores.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW MARKERS: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the extremely high concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 70% of total) combined with the severity and specificity of negative reviews suggests possible review manipulation or multiple business locations with vastly different quality standards.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and project completion scores are well-supported by 150+ mentions each, the pricing dimension reveals a systemic pattern of customer dissatisfaction that significantly undermines trust. The presence of serious negative reviews documenting flood damage, licensing violations, and no-shows, combined with geographic inconsistency and warranty disputes, suggests this company may have quality control or management issues that vary by location. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed, itemized written quotes and clarifying all fees upfront before engaging this company.

All four reviews consistently praise Jeremy's professionalism, punctuality, communication, and courteous demeanor, driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported across all reviews, with multiple customers noting timely, thorough work and satisfactory final results. Experience scores are also high, with reviewers specifically citing Jeremy's ability to quickly diagnose and resolve problems including frozen pipes, leaks, and new installations. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as 'reasonable' and 'reasonably priced,' but the limited mention count keeps that score conservative. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the fact that all reviews are from 2020–2021, meaning no data exists from the past 12 months.

• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though each review contains specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• All reviews are dated between February 2020 and September 2021 — none are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). Recency is a concern; contractor performance may have changed.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews limits statistical reliability across all dimensions. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score is directionally positive but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small review pool of only 4 reviews, all of which are over two years old and carry no recent performance data.

Fred's Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant polarization in customer experiences. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple documented communication failures, no-shows, and rescheduling issues, though many reviews praise punctuality and courtesy when work is performed. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple customers reporting substantial overcharges, lack of itemized estimates, and aggressive upselling, though some reviews cite fair and reasonable rates. Project completion is inconsistent—many jobs are completed promptly and well, but several reviews document incomplete work, callbacks that weren't honored, and quality issues discovered later. Technical experience is generally strong, with customers praising problem-solving ability and workmanship quality. The company's score is significantly impacted by a cluster of serious complaints from 2009–2024 regarding communication breakdowns and billing practices.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization detected—32 reviews split into two distinct groups: ~20 five-star reviews praising service, and ~6 one-star reviews documenting serious failures. This is not a normal distribution and suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential data quality issues.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2024-10-04, 2023-11-25, 2021-04-23, 2019-07-26, 2016-09-26) document identical communication failures: no callbacks, no responses to voicemails, no-shows without notice. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 4 reviews (2014-06-24, 2013-07-18, and two 2024 reviews) explicitly report overcharging, lack of itemized bills, and aggressive upselling. One customer reported $1600 for a water heater replacement with no labor/parts breakdown. Another reported $5000 for a toilet installation.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2009-08-12 documents multiple incomplete repairs (washer not installed, stem not installed, improper installation of handheld adapter, hole left in house wall without insulation). Customer was charged for 2h 45m but technician was only present 1h 45m.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2024, 2023, and 2021, suggesting recent deterioration in service quality. Oldest positive reviews (2012–2014) may not reflect current operations.
• UNKNOWN REVIEWS: Two reviews dated 2014-12-19 and 2014-04-22 contain only 'unknown' text and cannot be analyzed—treated as neutral 5-star ratings but lack substantive data.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail, though this is offset by highly detailed negative reviews that appear credible.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 32 reviews, the extreme polarization (20 five-star vs. 6 one-star with no middle ground), documented systemic communication failures, and multiple independent reports of overcharging suggest either severe inconsistency in service delivery or data integrity issues. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects the mathematical average, but the underlying distribution indicates this company is high-risk; customers should request itemized written estimates in advance and verify communication protocols before hiring.