Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 99202, Hayden, Idaho

Pace Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — technicians like Riley, Bailey, Derek, Hunter, and Nate are repeatedly praised for punctuality, courtesy, clear communication, and respect for customers' homes. Project completion scores well overall, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly and correctly, though a small number of negative reviews describe an incomplete drain clearing job, a failure to return calls, and a refusal to honor a warranty — these meaningfully suppress the completion score. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out transparent quotes, no hidden charges, and honest recommendations that saved customers money; however, one reviewer noted sticker shock on parts pricing and another found Roto-Rooter $100 cheaper after a failed job, keeping this score conservative. Experience scores well based on numerous mentions of skilled diagnostics, knowledgeable explanations, and successful resolution of complex issues including slab leaks, frozen pipes, and multi-system installs. The score is tempered slightly by a handful of negative experiences involving poor communication, unprofessional conduct by one technician, and at least one instance of work left incomplete.

• 20 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• One review (2014) appears to be for Mr. Rooter, not Pace Plumbing, and was excluded from scoring as it references a different company entirely.
• One review explicitly states the reviewer has never used Pace Plumbing for services (based on a real estate interaction only) — this was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review is from a former employee, which introduces potential bias; it was treated with reduced weight.
• There are 4 negative reviews (1-star) that describe serious issues: incomplete work with pipes left with an uncovered hole, refusal to honor warranty, owner dismissing customer concerns, failure to respond to a water emergency, and a rude technician who left abruptly. These are low in volume relative to total reviews but are substantive and credible, and they meaningfully impact project completion and professionalism scores.
• The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star, which warrants mild fake review scrutiny. However, most positive reviews contain specific technician names, job descriptions, and situational details (e.g., the January/February 2025 freeze event), which strongly suggests authenticity. Fake review risk is LOW.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-02 with no text and only 5-star ratings is slightly suspicious but not conclusive of manipulation given the broader review pattern.
• Recency note: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2024-2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older negative reviews (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) are present and were included but given reduced weight relative to recent reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews with strong recency and high specificity, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible; however, the presence of credible negative reviews describing incomplete work, warranty disputes, and communication failures means the score should not be interpreted as a near-perfect rating, and prospective customers should be aware of these documented failure cases.

Five Star Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (84.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness. Project completion scores (83.1) reflect reliable job finishing and follow-through, though some negative reviews cite incomplete work or scheduling issues. Pricing (78.2) shows the most variability—while many customers praise fair rates and value, a notable subset reports overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, and estimates that don't match final bills. Experience (81.6) is consistently validated through technical competence and problem-solving, though a few reviews question diagnostic accuracy. The company operates across multiple locations with varying quality consistency.

• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY ACROSS LOCATIONS: Reviews span multiple geographic areas (San Antonio, San Diego, Florida, Oklahoma, etc.) with notably different service quality. Some locations show significantly more negative feedback than others, suggesting inconsistent management or training.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly mention overcharging, bait-and-switch pricing, estimates that don't match final invoices, and charges significantly higher than competitors for identical work. This is the most frequently cited complaint across the dataset.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, and poor responsiveness despite claims of 24-hour service. At least 12 reviews cite these issues.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Approximately 35 reviews rate 1-2 stars with specific complaints about dishonesty, rudeness, poor workmanship, or service failures. This represents ~7% of total reviews but suggests systemic issues beyond isolated incidents.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 25-30 reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('5 stars,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional and friendly,' minimal detail) with no substantive information. These cluster around specific dates (June 2025, June 2024, June 2023) suggesting possible bulk posting.
• HOME WARRANTY COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (8+) specifically cite problems when company is dispatched through home warranty programs, with complaints about rudeness, overcharging, and poor communication with warranty companies.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: Several reviews document jobs requiring multiple visits, unfinished work, or problems recurring shortly after repair, suggesting quality control issues.
• STAFF CONDUCT ISSUES: A few reviews mention rude technicians, aggressive driving behavior, and unprofessional communication, though these are less frequent than other complaint categories.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for overall service quality, but CAUTION is warranted regarding pricing transparency and consistency across locations—the pricing dimension (78.2) likely understates customer dissatisfaction due to the high volume of specific overcharging complaints that may not be fully captured in the scoring methodology. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show more positive sentiment than older reviews (2016-2020), suggesting possible recent management improvements, but the pricing and communication issues remain persistent concerns that warrant direct inquiry before hiring.