Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 83401, Idaho Falls, Idaho

Standard Plumbing, primarily operated by Braulio and Tony, demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. The company excels in professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication across 89 reviews. Pricing is fair and transparent, with customers frequently noting reasonable rates and honest assessments that save money (62 mentions). Project completion is reliable with strong follow-through and timely delivery documented in 78 reviews. Technical expertise is evident through skilled workmanship, problem-solving ability, and knowledgeable guidance mentioned in 71 reviews. The WW Score of 88.2 reflects a highly trustworthy contractor with strong execution across all service dimensions.

• MIXED BUSINESS CONTEXT: Reviews span multiple business entities (Standard Plumbing service, Standard Supply retail, and HVAC supplier). Primary focus is Standard Plumbing service by Braulio/Tony, but approximately 8-10 reviews reference retail supply or HVAC operations, which may not be directly comparable to plumbing service quality.
• OUTLIER NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Three 1-star reviews (2023-09-11, 2022-12-05, 2022-11-04) and one 2-star review (2022-11-04) present significant concerns. The 2023-09-11 review alleges misdiagnosis (recommending full water heater replacement when only pilot light relight was needed). The 2022-11-04 review claims repeated no-shows and ignored callbacks. These represent legitimate service failures that warrant caution despite overall positive trend.
• RECENCY DISTRIBUTION: Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2019-2024, with strong recent activity (2024-2025). However, oldest reviews (2006-2007) are from different era and may reflect different business operations. Analysis weighted toward recent reviews per Rule 6.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 8 reviews contain no text or only ratings/single words ('Good people', '1/2 a star', blank entries). These were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data per Rule 1.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: While most reviews are detailed and specific, there is a cluster of highly similar positive language (e.g., 'honest, fair, responsive, professional' appearing in 15+ reviews with nearly identical phrasing). However, each review contains unique job details and specific dates, suggesting authentic customer experiences rather than fabricated reviews. Confidence remains HIGH but not absolute.
• BUSINESS TRANSITION CONCERN: One 2022-11-04 review references work done 'at the start of the pandemic' (2020) with ongoing issues, suggesting potential quality control or callback issues in earlier period. More recent reviews (2023-2024) do not reflect similar callback failures.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable, based on 127 reviews with strong data density across all four dimensions (62-89 mentions each). The HIGH confidence rating is supported by consistent positive feedback, specific job details, and recent activity. However, the three documented service failures (misdiagnosis, no-shows, ignored callbacks) indicate this is not a perfect contractor; customers should expect excellent service in most cases but acknowledge a small risk of communication or follow-through issues. The score represents a trustworthy contractor suitable for most plumbing needs, with the caveat that individual experiences may vary.

King George Royal Flush demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians across 14 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished successfully, though one significant 2016 failure (sewage backup not resolved, rude callback) and occasional callbacks for incomplete root removal lower this score. Pricing receives moderate marks—generally fair but occasionally perceived as steep compared to competitors. Technical expertise is evident through diagnostic recommendations (camera inspection, drain screens) and effective problem-solving. The company's main weakness is inconsistent follow-through on complex jobs requiring multiple visits.

• One severely negative review (2016-09-11, 1-star) describing incomplete work, poor communication, and rude behavior from owner 'Royal Flush' who hung up on customer. This is a material quality issue that significantly impacts overall reliability.
• Three reviews contain only punctuation marks or 'unknown' text (2016-05-18, 2016-02-26, 2014-06-05, 2014-03-26), providing no usable data but counted in total.
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (2010-2016), with only 2 reviews from 2019 and 2016. Recent performance data is limited.
• Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers found $124-$164 reasonable, others questioned whether prices were competitive. No transparent pricing structure mentioned.
• One review (2010-03-06) required three service calls to fully resolve root obstruction, suggesting occasional incomplete initial diagnosis.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence for general service quality, but the 2016 failure and age of most reviews (pre-2017) suggest caution—current performance may differ from historical data, and the company's handling of complex or problematic situations remains uncertain based on limited recent evidence.

The combined review set — spanning Just Right Services (HVAC/plumbing) and C&C Plumbing — shows consistently strong professionalism and technical competence across a very large number of reviews, with repeated praise for punctuality, communication, friendliness, and knowledgeable technicians. Pricing scores are pulled down by several explicit complaints: a $430 charge for a faucet replacement, a $500+ quote for toilet tank internals, a disputed condo surcharge, and a 1-star review citing billing confusion and unresponsiveness — indicating pricing transparency is an area of inconsistency. Project completion is generally strong but is meaningfully penalized by a few notable failures: an abandoned gas line job, a unit left on a floating base without a proper foundation, a post-installation recirculating pump issue with no follow-up, a failed leak detection with holes left in walls, and a faucet that still leaked after service. Experience scores are high overall, supported by dozens of reviews citing skilled diagnostics, problem-solving, and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe technicians unfamiliar with the problem or unable to complete the job.

• MIXED CONTRACTOR DATA: This review set appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct businesses — 'Just Right Services' (HVAC/plumbing, California) and 'C&C Plumbing' (plumbing, Washington DC/California). Scores reflect the blended dataset but may not accurately represent either company individually.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'Chris was very thorough and efficient!' appears twice with identical text and ratings on consecutive dates (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-08). This may indicate a duplicate submission.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2009 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are older than 12 months, with many dating back to 2013–2019. More recent reviews (2024–2025) are weighted more heavily in scoring.
• NEGATIVE PRICING SIGNALS: Multiple explicit pricing complaints across both companies — $430 for faucet labor, $500+ toilet tank quote, disputed condo surcharges, and billing confusion — reduce confidence in consistent fair pricing.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Several reviews describe incomplete or abandoned work: a gas line job walked away from mid-job (2018), a new HVAC unit left on a floating base requiring costly reinstallation (2025), a post-install recirculating pump issue with no follow-up response (2023), a failed leak detection leaving large holes in walls (2022), and a faucet still leaking after service (2018).
• ONE CONDESCENDING RESPONSE COMPLAINT: One reviewer (1-star, 2024) reported receiving a condescending reply from the owner via Yelp messaging, which is a professionalism flag even though no service was rendered.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: While many reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Always great'), the dataset also contains a large number of highly specific, detailed reviews with named technicians and described scenarios. Overall fake review risk is assessed as low, but the volume of blank 5-star reviews and a few very short generic entries slightly reduce confidence.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review dataset spanning multiple years and appears to represent at least two distinct businesses; while the HIGH confidence rating reflects strong mention volume, users should treat this score as a blended approximation and seek company-specific reviews before making a hiring decision.

Summers Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly demeanor across 38 reviews. Pricing receives solid marks (81.4) with many customers noting fair and transparent quotes, though some older reviews flag inflated material costs. Project completion scores 79.2, reflecting generally successful outcomes but complicated by several negative reviews citing incomplete work, billing disputes, and follow-up failures. Experience is well-documented at 85.6, with Robert frequently praised for technical knowledge and problem-solving. However, three recent 1-star reviews (2024-2023) alleging poor communication, unresolved issues, and aggressive customer service significantly temper the otherwise overwhelmingly positive profile.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews dated 2024-11-11 and 2024-10-18 are nearly identical in phrasing ('I called them because of a neighbor's reference and they were able to work with my teaching schedule and come out the same day that I called. Robert was professional and friendly as he clearly explained every step.'). This verbatim repetition across two separate reviews is suspicious.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Three 1-star reviews (2024-06-07, 2024-05-24, 2023-10-04, 2023-09-12, 2021-10-20) describe significant failures: non-delivery of written estimates, rude/aggressive communication, incomplete work, billing disputes, and alleged legal threats against reviewers. These are detailed and specific complaints, not generic criticism.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews cluster in 2023-2024, but two very old reviews (2007, 2006) are included. The 2006 review describing poor workmanship and unprofessional behavior is dated but consistent with some recent complaints about incomplete work.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Positive reviews emphasize same-day service and quick response; negative reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, and communication failures. This suggests inconsistent operational standards.
• LEGAL/REPUTATIONAL RISK: The 2023-10-04 review explicitly alleges the owner threatened legal action against a customer for writing a negative review and refused refund. This is a serious red flag for business practices and customer relations.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. The overwhelmingly positive reviews (43 five-star ratings) are offset by credible, detailed negative reviews describing communication failures, incomplete work, and aggressive customer service. The suspicious duplication of two 2024 reviews and the owner's alleged legal threats against reviewers further reduce trustworthiness. Customers should expect strong technical skills and fair pricing but should verify communication protocols and get detailed written estimates before committing to work.

AAA Sewer Service earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and experience being the most consistently praised attributes — technicians like Kadon, Kade, Preston, and Sean are repeatedly described as knowledgeable, courteous, and thorough. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out good value and transparent quotes. Project completion scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by three notable negative reviews: one describing a no-call no-show across two days of wasted PTO, one detailing an 8-week ordeal with no work ever completed after a deposit was taken, and one citing an unreachable voicemail during a septic emergency. These failures represent serious breakdowns in follow-through and reliability that cannot be ignored. The majority of reviews are recent and positive, but the pattern of scheduling and communication failures in the negative reviews introduces enough doubt to prevent a top-tier project completion score.

• 3 reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A mild clustering pattern exists: many reviews share similar superlative language ('best company', 'highly recommend', 'above and beyond'). While this may reflect genuine satisfaction, it warrants mild caution.
• Three 1-star reviews describe serious operational failures: repeated no-call no-shows, an unreturned deposit with no work completed over 8 weeks, and an unreachable voicemail during an emergency. These are credible and specific complaints that significantly impact project completion scoring.
• Several older reviews (2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) are included. Per recency rules, these carry reduced weight. The negative reviews from 2017 and 2018 are older but describe specific, credible failures and are not dismissed.
• No fake review pattern detected. Negative reviews are specific and detailed, and positive reviews generally include named technicians and situational context, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 48 reviews with usable data spanning over a decade, with the majority being recent and detailed — the score carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the three specific and credible negative reviews describing scheduling failures and non-completion of work before making a hiring decision.

First Call Jewel demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism across most service interactions, with 68 mentions of professional behavior and 52 mentions of skilled workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness with 22 explicit complaints about high costs, hidden charges, and lack of transparency—multiple customers report being charged 2-4x expected amounts without clear justification. Project completion is generally solid (80/100), though some older reviews cite scheduling failures and no-shows. The company shows particular strength in emergency response and technical problem-solving, but customer trust is undermined by perceived overcharging and inconsistent follow-through on estimates and callbacks.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 22 mentions of pricing issues including complaints of charges 2-4x market rate, lack of transparent quotes, and hidden fees. Multiple customers explicitly state they were overcharged or felt 'ripped off.' This is the most consistent negative pattern.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews (2015-2021 era) cite unresponsive staff, missed callbacks, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and poor phone answering. One customer waited over a week for an estimate that never arrived.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Reviews span from 5-star praise to 1-star complaints, suggesting high variability in technician quality or service standards.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews (40+) are from 2025 and recent 2024-2025 period, with predominantly 5-star ratings and minimal detail. Older reviews (2012-2021) contain more substantive criticism. Recent reviews show patterns of generic praise ('awesome,' 'great job') with limited specifics, raising authenticity concerns.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only punctuation marks ('.', '..', 'unknown') or single words ('Excellent,' 'Great job') with 5-star ratings—these appear to be placeholder or incomplete entries (approximately 15 reviews).
• WARRANTY DISPARITY: One customer noted that warranty coverage varies dramatically based on service package selected ($30 vs $1,000+), which may constitute unfair practice.
• HISTORICAL PATTERN: Negative reviews cluster in 2015-2021 period with specific complaints; recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive with minimal detail, suggesting possible review curation or recent service improvements.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for technical competence and professionalism, but LOW confidence for pricing fairness. The company excels at emergency response and skilled work, but the consistent pattern of pricing complaints across multiple years and customer segments is a material concern that significantly reduces overall trustworthiness. Recent 5-star reviews lack substantive detail and may not reflect the full customer experience. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written quotes and compare with competitors before committing.