Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 83406, Idaho Falls, Idaho

Holeshot Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and work quality across 35 and 28 mentions respectively. However, pricing emerges as a significant concern, with multiple detailed complaints about overcharging, excessive material markups (200-400%), and billing for unnecessary work. While most reviews are highly positive and recent (past 12 months), the negative pricing feedback is specific and credible, preventing a higher overall score. Experience scores well based on technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, though some older reviews cite quality issues with rough-in plumbing work.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple detailed complaints about overcharging and unnecessary work (Feb 2025, Feb 2025 reviews detail $100 double-charge and $1800 labor for 3-hour job with 95% materials pre-supplied). These are specific, credible grievances that significantly impact pricing confidence.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Older reviews (2018, 2018) cite poor rough-in plumbing quality and framing issues, suggesting possible quality control variation over time.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: One 2018 review reports no-show for appointment with no communication or voicemail capability—contradicts otherwise strong responsiveness claims.
• SAFETY/LIABILITY CONCERN: One 2024 review alleges vehicle accident involving company driver with serious injury claims. This is a severe allegation but appears isolated and may relate to insurance/liability rather than plumbing service quality.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (May 2025, June 2024) contain only 5-star ratings with no text, reducing data quality slightly.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews (40+) are from June 2024 onward, with older reviews (2011-2018) showing some quality inconsistencies. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions and recent review concentration, but should be interpreted with caution regarding pricing: while professionalism and completion are genuinely strong (82.5 and 81.0), the pricing score of 68.0 is dragged down by credible, detailed complaints about overcharging and unnecessary work that suggest systematic billing practices favoring company profit over customer value.

The majority of reviews are positive and praise technicians by name for being courteous, on time, and communicative, which supports a reasonable professionalism score. However, several serious negative reviews significantly drag down all dimensions: one review describes wildly inaccurate leak detection leading to a massively inflated repair quote, another describes a technician leaving a camera lodged in a sewer main and then billing the customer for the resulting damage, and a third describes unsafe and non-code-compliant gas line installation. Pricing is a mixed picture — many reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing, but multiple 1-star reviews describe aggressive upselling, inflated quotes, and billing disputes including double-cashing checks. Project completion is similarly mixed, with several reviews describing abandoned work, misdiagnosed problems, and failure to follow through on callbacks or appointments. The positive reviews, while numerous, are heavily concentrated among recent Rooter Hero-era reviews and older Criterion-era reviews, suggesting this profile may aggregate two or more distinct business entities, which complicates scoring reliability.

• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY PROFILE: Reviews reference at least two distinct business names — 'Rooter Hero' and 'Criterion Plumbers' — with different technician names and operating styles. This profile likely aggregates reviews for more than one business, which significantly undermines the reliability of any composite score.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe major professional failures including unsafe gas line installation not up to code, a technician lodging a camera in a sewer main and billing the customer for the error, and wildly inaccurate leak detection leading to a $8,950 quote that a competitor resolved for under $3,000.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT FLAGGED: Two separate reviews allege double-cashing of checks and one alleges a cashed check after the owner promised not to cash it. These are serious ethical and financial integrity concerns.
• UPSELL / PRICE INFLATION PATTERN: Multiple reviews across both business entities describe technicians recommending expensive unnecessary work or inflating scopes, including a $4,500 quote for a drain a homeowner fixed herself, and a $1,500 inline filter upsell following suspicious 'sediment' appearing in a toilet bowl.
• APPOINTMENT AND RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least two reviews describe cancelled or phantom appointments, unreturned calls, and multi-week delays for urgent issues — one resulting in significant water and mold damage.
• RECENCY NOTE: Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2025 and 2019-2020. The most severe negative reviews span 2020-2025, indicating persistent issues over time rather than isolated incidents.
• 8 reviews contained no text and only a star rating — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of 2025 Rooter Hero reviews share very similar generic praise structures ('professional, friendly, on time') with minimal specifics. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution and slightly conservative scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but should be treated with significant caution given strong evidence of multi-entity profile aggregation, repeated serious misconduct allegations, and a pattern of billing irregularities that suggest the true performance of either underlying business may differ substantially from the blended composite score presented here.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2010, making it over 14 years old and of very limited reliability. The review mentions 'great prices' which provides minimal evidence for the pricing dimension, scored conservatively at 80 due to the vague and unspecific nature of the praise. The phrase 'great service' is too generic to be mapped to any specific dimension without further detail. No data exists for professionalism, project completion, or experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2010, over 14 years old — recency is extremely poor and this data should be treated as largely irrelevant to current performance.
• Review language is highly generic ('great service and great prices') with no specific details — low informational value.
• Single 5-star review with no specifics may not be representative of overall contractor quality.

This score report is based on a single, 14-year-old review with no specific details across most dimensions and should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of current contractor quality.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, dated July 2010 — over 14 years ago — making any score highly unreliable. The review praises fast and professional installation, knowledge of water softeners, and fair pricing, which touches on all four dimensions. However, with just one review and no specifics beyond general praise, scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions. The age of this review means it carries very little weight in assessing current performance.

• Only 1 review available — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• The sole review is dated July 21, 2010 — over 14 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• The review is generic in nature with no specific details about the job scope, timeline, or technician names, which limits its credibility.
• All dimensions scored conservatively due to single-mention LIMITED confidence across the board.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single review from 2010, which is far too old and too vague to draw any meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency.