Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 83401, Idaho Falls, Idaho

Evans Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication across 48 reviews. Project completion is solid at 78.0, though several negative reviews document incomplete repairs, callback failures, and unresolved issues that temper confidence. Experience/workmanship scores well at 80.0 based on technical knowledge and skill demonstrated. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (65.0) with 12 explicit mentions of billing disputes, hidden charges, inflated quotes, and lack of itemized invoices. The company shows bipolar performance: many recent reviews (2024-2025) are uniformly positive, while older reviews (2011-2023) contain serious complaints about billing practices, no-shows, and quality issues. This pattern suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review manipulation.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 28 reviews with no text content (empty body, 5-star rating only) concentrated in May-June 2025 and scattered dates. This is highly unusual and suggests possible fake/placeholder reviews.
• BIPOLAR PERFORMANCE: Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with glowing detail, while older reviews (2011-2023) contain serious complaints about billing fraud, no-shows, and poor workmanship. This stark divergence warrants skepticism.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2023, 2022, 2019, 2013) document billing disputes, hidden charges, inflated quotes, lack of itemized invoices, and collection threats. This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE FAKE/SPAM REVIEW DETECTED: Review dated 2023-07-11 contains incoherent rambling ('your hair is very pretty', 'evan sucks') mixed with unrelated praise—clearly not a legitimate plumbing review.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews report leaks in newly installed work (2018, 2019), incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (2022), and poor workmanship (2024 Sean review). Suggests quality control issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025. Older reviews (pre-2023) show more critical feedback. Recent surge in 5-star reviews may not reflect historical performance.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are consistently positive and support a higher score, the presence of 28 empty placeholder reviews, stark contrast with older critical reviews, documented billing fraud patterns, and one obvious fake review significantly undermine confidence. The company appears to have improved operationally in 2024-2025, but historical billing practices and quality issues are well-documented. Customers should verify current pricing transparency and request itemized invoices before engaging.

Crown Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and technical experience, with hundreds of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and skilled problem-solving across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished as promised, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe no-shows, rescheduling failures, incomplete work, and jobs that required multiple return visits to resolve. The most significant drag on the overall score is pricing: a substantial and consistent pattern of complaints across many independent reviewers describes charges that are 2x to 4x competitor quotes, surprise fees added after arrival, and a $145 diagnostic fee that was not always disclosed upfront. While many satisfied customers acknowledge the premium pricing as acceptable given quality, the volume and specificity of pricing complaints is too large to discount and materially lowers the Price Friendly dimension. The WW Score of 74.2 reflects a company with genuine strengths in craft and customer interaction, offset by a persistent and well-documented pricing concern.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least three reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Tyler showed up within 15 minutes' review appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the 'Easy scheduling. Prompt service' review appears on both dates; the large PEX-A repipe review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the Sunday evening shower cartridge emergency review appears verbatim on both 2022-06-07 and 2021-09-13). This pattern suggests possible review manipulation or platform cross-posting errors. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE NUMEROUS AND SPECIFIC: At least 25-30 independent reviews explicitly cite pricing as excessive, with multiple reviewers providing competitor comparisons showing Crown at 2x-4x market rate. This is not a fringe concern — it is a consistent, well-documented pattern across years and locations.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) describe Crown failing to show up for scheduled appointments, not calling to reschedule, or arriving at the wrong time with no advance notice. This is a recurring operational weakness.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES ON QUOTES AND CALLBACKS: Several reviews describe estimators or technicians promising to follow up with quotes or return calls and never doing so, suggesting inconsistent office-to-field communication.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES IN MINORITY OF REVIEWS: A smaller but notable set of reviews describes work that failed shortly after completion, incorrect diagnoses, upselling of unnecessary work, and jobs left incomplete or requiring third-party correction.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2005 to 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement in recent operations, but the pricing complaints persist into the most recent period.
• BLANK REVIEWS WITH RATINGS: A significant number of reviews contain no text — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume (approximately 80+ blank reviews) inflates the raw star average and should be noted.

This WW Score of 74.2 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence; the score reliably reflects a company with strong technical skill and professionalism but a well-documented and persistent pattern of premium pricing, occasional scheduling failures, and inconsistent follow-through that meaningfully limits the score.

Sermon shows mixed performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—some reviews praise punctuality and communication (RV receptacle project, breaker repair), while others cite severe lapses including 7-day non-response, lack of estimates, and unprofessional conduct. Pricing is a significant weakness, with one customer reporting a 112% markup on a water heater and multiple complaints about lack of transparency and itemization. Project completion is hampered by quality issues (oversized holes, slow work, rework required) and unresolved problems that triggered additional charges. Experience shows competence in routine repairs but poor judgment in complex installations and customer interaction. The company's reliability is undermined by high variability in service quality.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2016-10-05 11:32:33 and 2016-10-05 00:00:00 contain identical text with nearly identical complaints—this appears to be a duplicate submission rather than independent validation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 8 of 13 reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2021). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• PRICING RED FLAG: One detailed 2018 review documents a 112% markup ($1,775 vs. ~$850 market price) on water heater installation. Another 2016 review criticizes lack of itemization and slow billing practices. Multiple pricing complaints suggest systemic issue.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2016 reviews document serious conduct issues—technician sitting idle in truck, lack of estimates, unprofessional personal comments to customer, requests for personal checks rather than company checks.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews (2013, 2014, 2016) contain minimal detail ('unknown' text, vague praise) and lack specificity, reducing their evidentiary value.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance between 5-star and 1-star ratings suggests either highly variable service delivery or potential selection bias in review submission.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (62% of reviews older than 3 years), one confirmed duplicate review, and multiple generic/low-detail submissions that reduce data quality. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine high-confidence dimension scores, but the underlying data quality is compromised. Recent performance (past 12 months) appears better than historical average, but sample size is too small to confirm trend. Customers should request detailed written estimates and itemized invoices before engaging this contractor.

First Street Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong positive feedback on responsiveness, speed, and technical skill offset by serious concerns about professionalism, pricing transparency, and accountability. Multiple reviews (2016, 2023, 2021) document major failures: undisclosed scope changes that doubled costs, poor workmanship with leaks and damage, failure to clean up after work, and owner refusal to make things right when mistakes occurred. Positive reviews praise quick response times and fair pricing, but negative reviews reveal bait-and-switch pricing tactics and lack of customer care. The company's willingness to fire employees and apologize without remediation suggests systemic accountability issues.

• CRITICAL: Three 1-star reviews (2016, 2023, 2021) document serious pattern of scope creep, pricing deception, poor workmanship, and owner refusal to remedy mistakes or offer refunds. This is not isolated—it suggests systemic business practice issues.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Review from 2016 explicitly documents bid amount doubled after work started without prior agreement. Review from 2023 documents $2000 charge for incomplete work with no refund offered. These are not minor disputes—they indicate potential predatory pricing.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document lack of basic professionalism—no masks/shoe covers, tracked mud through elderly customer's home, left debris and water damage without notification or cleanup, wobbly installations, leaking pipes.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY: In both major failure cases (2023, 2021), owner response was minimal ('sorry' with no remediation) or refused to meet with customer. This suggests poor quality control and customer service culture.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews cluster in 2020-2024 (recent), while detailed negative reviews span 2016-2023. However, the 2023 water softener review is recent and documents serious deception.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK DETAIL: Several 5-star reviews are generic ('best outfit,' 'absolute best') with minimal specifics, while negative reviews are extremely detailed and credible. This asymmetry suggests positive reviews may be less reliable indicators of true performance.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the MODERATE confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the stark polarization between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star reviews documenting fraud-like behavior (scope creep, non-disclosure, refusal to remedy) suggests this company has serious quality control and ethics issues. The pattern of owner non-responsiveness to legitimate complaints is particularly concerning. Potential customers should heavily weight the negative reviews, especially the 2023 and 2016 cases, as they document specific, credible failures with financial and property damage consequences.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in project completion and reliability. While technical skill and experience are evident in positive reviews, two critical failures—no-shows with no communication and incomplete work billing—severely damage the overall score. Professionalism mentions are mixed, with courteous behavior noted but offset by missed appointments and poor follow-through. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but the pattern of unreliability and incomplete project delivery is the primary concern. The WW Score reflects these serious execution gaps despite demonstrated technical competence.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2014 and 2010) describe missed appointments with no communication and incomplete work with full billing—serious red flags for reliability and honesty.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2010–2015). Only 2 reviews from 2021 are recent; older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• INCONSISTENT PATTERN: Positive reviews praise hard work and honesty, but negative reviews directly contradict this with accusations of dishonesty (charging for work not performed) and unreliability (no-shows).
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('hard working,' 'honest,' 'courteous') which could suggest template-like or potentially fabricated reviews, though this is not conclusive.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: Review dated 2015-12-15 contains only 'unknown' text and provides no data.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of most reviews and conflicting patterns of behavior; the two serious project completion failures (missed appointments, incomplete billing) are well-documented and significantly undermine confidence in reliability, despite positive technical feedback.

Zac demonstrates mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent: one review praises his efficiency and demeanor, while another explicitly criticizes unprofessional communication (ignoring calls/texts during a project). Project completion shows a critical gap—one review documents incomplete work and failure to return for trim-out, resulting in customer-incurred permit costs. Pricing receives limited positive mention in one review. Experience/skill is moderately supported by two reviews noting competent work on specific tasks. The severe project abandonment issue significantly impacts the overall score despite some positive professionalism mentions.

• CRITICAL: One review (2020-01-31) documents serious project abandonment—contractor failed to complete rough-in follow-up work and became unresponsive, forcing customer to hire inspector and pay permit fees. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are significantly outdated (2015 and 2020). Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024-09-21), limiting confidence in current performance.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Stark contrast between 5-star review (2024) and 1-star review (2020) suggests inconsistent service quality or possible changes in business practices. The 2024 review lacks detail on project complexity.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is inherently limited.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews), significant recency gaps, and one documented case of serious project abandonment that raises substantial concerns about follow-through and professionalism despite recent positive feedback.