Find Nearby Plumbers In Idaho Falls, Idaho

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.

All About Plumbing Repair earns strong marks across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with dozens of reviews praising technicians — especially Keaton and Steve — for being knowledgeable, friendly, timely, and thorough. Project completion scores well overall, with multiple reviews noting jobs finished quickly and completely, including after-hours and emergency calls; however, a recurring pattern of scheduling failures (no-shows, last-minute cancellations, late arrivals) across multiple reviews — some recent, some older — meaningfully drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call prices 'fair' or 'reasonable,' there are credible, detailed complaints about prices being significantly above market rate, including one reviewer who secured the same work for half the quoted price. The pricing score reflects this genuine split in customer experience rather than defaulting to the majority positive sentiment.

• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: At least 4 reviews (2018, 2018, 2021, and implicitly the 2024 'bad experience' review) describe no-shows, last-minute cancellations, or significant late arrivals. This is a consistent pattern across multiple years and should be weighted seriously.
• PRICING CONCERN: One detailed 3-star review (2023) documents a quote of over $2,000 for work another plumber completed for $600, and a separate 1-star review (2024) explicitly states the reviewer felt they overpaid significantly for a water heater and water softener. These are specific, credible complaints that offset the many 'fair price' comments.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 35+) are from 2024–2025 and carry full weight. Approximately 8 reviews are from 2018–2021 and are given reduced weight, though the scheduling failure pattern appears in both older and more recent reviews.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW QUALITY CONCERN: Two reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: A small number of reviews (e.g., the lengthy 2023 5-star review) use unusually polished, marketing-style language covering every dimension with no specific job details, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual reviews. However, the majority of positive reviews include specific names, job types, and details, so no broad fake-review flag is warranted.
• ONE-WORD NEGATIVE REVIEW: The 'Bad experience overall' 1-star review (2024) provides no detail and cannot be scored dimensionally, but is counted as a signal of dissatisfaction.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (50 total, 48 usable) spanning 2014–2025, with strong recency weighting; the score is considered moderately reliable overall, but prospective customers should specifically investigate the company's scheduling reliability and request itemized quotes before committing, as these are documented weak points supported by multiple independent reviewers.

Platinum Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a very large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by several serious negative reviews describing road rage incidents from technicians in company vehicles, unprofessional political commentary during service calls, and at least one report of a technician abandoning a job mid-completion. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers cite fair or competitive pricing, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes dramatically inflated quotes (including a $9,900 quote for a tank replacement worth under $400, and $500+ for a simple fill valve job), required prepayments, and upselling of unnecessary work — these are significant red flags that substantially drag the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished on time and correctly, but there are credible reports of incomplete work, failure to return for follow-up, and one detailed account of a botched bathtub installation requiring three attempts and still leaving defects. Experience scores well overall given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is undermined by the bathtub installation disaster and the AC/water line misdiagnosis complaint.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Very efficient, polite, and overall good quality', 'They were very prompt and professional', 'Good service', 'Highly recommend them', 'Outstanding job!! Professional and friendly', 'Replaced 16 year old shower fixtures', 'They were attentive', 'My family and I are very satisfied', 'We had a leaking pipe', 'Polite and professional', 'Merry Christmas merry Christmas', 'Nothing', 'They were very polite and did a wonderful job', 'Eric & Bacon installed my toilet', 'They guys were on time and very professional', 'very useful and very effective', 'They were very quick to respond', 'They were very prompt and always showed up'). These duplicates inflate review counts and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts. Confidence in raw review volume is reduced.
• ROAD RAGE / CONDUCT INCIDENTS: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 3) describe dangerous or aggressive driving behavior by technicians in company vehicles, including tailgating, cutting off vehicles, running red lights, and intimidating a woman with a baby in the car. One reviewer also describes a technician making politically inflammatory comments during a service call. These are serious professionalism and liability concerns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — POTENTIAL UPSELLING: Multiple credible negative reviews describe quotes that were dramatically higher than market rate (e.g., $9,900 for a pressure tank worth under $400; $500+ for two fill valves; $1,700 quote for work done DIY for $200; $4,000+ for allegedly unnecessary water line work). One reviewer describes being charged $500 upfront and then told the job could not be completed, with only a partial refund offered.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / ABANDONMENT: One reviewer reports paying $1,200 upfront for a shower, door, toilet, and water heater and receiving only a shower door, with calls going unanswered. Another describes a botched freestanding tub installation requiring three attempts, still leaving defects including improper drainage. A third describes a carbon monoxide vent improperly routed into an attic with no cleanup and no response to follow-up calls.
• MULTI-ENTITY AGGREGATION SUSPECTED: Reviews reference many different named technicians and owners (Nick, Matt, Jose, Paul, Colton, Greg, Scott, Gary, Joseph, Logan, Brandon, Chris, Cedar, Nate, Jason, Justin, Eric, Joshua, Jack, Isaac, Walt, JD, Zach) across very different geographic locations and time periods. This strongly suggests these reviews may be aggregated from multiple distinct business entities operating under the 'Platinum Plumbing' name, which significantly reduces the reliability of treating this as a single contractor profile.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2020 onward, with the most recent cluster from 2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) are fewer in number but generally positive. The negative conduct and pricing complaints are concentrated in the 2020–2024 period, which is the most relevant window for current assessment.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews (particularly those dated 2025-05-10 referencing 'Colton') use slightly unusual phrasing consistent with non-native English or templated language (e.g., 'Super blissful with the service', 'used to be visited the subsequent day', 'Colton has simply completed some work in my flat', 'would exceedingly advocate him'). These may be inauthentic reviews and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH data reliability in terms of volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of duplicate reviews, suspected multi-entity aggregation across different geographic markets and business owners, several credible reports of serious misconduct and pricing abuse, and possible inauthentic reviews — consumers should verify they are engaging the specific local branch of 'Platinum Plumbing' they intend to hire and request references and itemized quotes before committing.

Apollo Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on decades of community trust, with the majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing tasks. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by a recurring pattern of no-shows and unreturned calls documented across multiple independent reviews spanning 2016–2018, which meaningfully reduces confidence in consistency. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call costs reasonable or fair, there are multiple credible complaints of overcharging — including one reviewer whose water company contact expressed disbelief at the bill, and another who was charged $360 for under an hour of work with a faucet still leaking afterward. Project completion is solid for most jobs but is significantly penalized by one detailed and credible 1-star review alleging dishonest work on a septic line, combined with the no-show pattern noted by at least two other reviewers. Experience scores highest, with consistent praise for technical knowledge, problem-solving, and quality of workmanship across many years and job types.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 'Phil and his son-in-law are the best...' appear to be near-identical in text, posted under different dates (2022-06-10 and 2021-12-06). This may indicate a copied or fake review and has been treated with reduced weight.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least two independent reviewers (2016 and 2017) explicitly describe Phil promising to come out and not showing up, with no follow-up communication. This is a meaningful reliability signal.
• SERIOUS INTEGRITY ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (2017) credibly alleges that Phil claimed to have snaked 80+ feet of pipe when physical evidence (a collapsed tarpaper pipe just 10 feet from the tank) made that claim impossible. This is a significant flag for honesty in project reporting.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Three separate reviewers across different years (2011, 2013, 2018) independently raised overcharging concerns. One reviewer was promised a partial refund that was never delivered. These are not isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer (2017) reported calling over a week with no return call for a small job. Another (2018) reported Phil never checked his voicemail before purchasing a pump for a cancelled appointment, then became hostile. These suggest inconsistent communication practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 25 of 54) are from 2016 or earlier, some dating back to 2007. The business appears to have changed personnel over time (Phil historically, now Corey and Josh more prominently in recent reviews). Older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text — one rated 1.0 and one rated 5.0. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• POSSIBLE PERSONNEL TRANSITION: Recent reviews (2024–2025) reference Corey, Josh, and Jamin as primary technicians, while older reviews focus almost exclusively on Phil. This may indicate ownership or staffing changes that affect the relevance of historical reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the presence of credible integrity allegations, a documented no-show pattern, multiple independent overcharging complaints, and a possible personnel transition mean the score should be interpreted cautiously — particularly for customers relying on the older Phil-era reputation to predict current service under Corey and the newer team.

Westside Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and responsive service across 89 mentions. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and follow-through honored, though some older reviews cite incomplete diagnostics or abandoned callbacks. Experience and technical skill are generally solid, with technicians like Orlando, Matt, and Preston frequently praised for knowledge and efficiency. However, pricing presents a significant concern: 32 mentions reveal a pattern of overcharging, hidden fees, and quotes substantially higher than competitors—some customers report paying $1,000+ more than neighbors for identical services. Several older reviews (2014-2018) document aggressive upselling and questionable diagnostic practices, though more recent reviews (2023-2025) show improvement in honesty and fair pricing.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2014-2018 and 2022-2025) document overcharging patterns. One customer paid $3,000 for water heater installation vs. neighbors' $1,500-$2,000. Another was quoted $1,900 vs. actual fair price of $1,200. This suggests systemic pricing issues despite recent improvements.
• HISTORICAL MISCONDUCT (2014-2018): Older reviews reveal serious problems: false warranty claims to AHS, misdiagnosis of septic vs. drain issues, refusal to perform promised work (snaking), inappropriate personal comments to female customer, and unresponsive management. These suggest past quality control failures.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER REVIEWS: 9 one-star reviews (2014-2025) cite incompetence, dishonesty, rude staff, and poor follow-up. One 2023 review documents unprofessional behavior (inappropriate comments, refusal to snake line) and 2-year customer suffering. Another 2024 review alleges Orlando charged full day rate for 1 hour work and hit customer's vehicle without response.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while critical reviews cluster in 2014-2018 and scattered 2022-2023. This suggests either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation/filtering of older complaints.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Many recent 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'quick,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. While not conclusive fake review evidence, combined with recency clustering, warrants caution.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians (Orlando, Matt, Preston, Jay, Lance) receive consistent praise, but unnamed technicians and older reviews document poor diagnostics, rudeness, and incompetence. Suggests quality depends heavily on individual technician assignment.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews cite failure to return calls, hang-ups, and dismissive responses to complaints (2014-2018, 2016). One 2016 review notes owner eventually called after negative review posted, suggesting complaints may be ignored without public pressure.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently positive and support the score, a substantial body of older reviews (2014-2018) documents serious misconduct including overcharging, false claims, and poor diagnostics. The dramatic shift toward 5-star reviews in 2023-2025 may reflect genuine operational improvement under current management, but could also indicate review filtering or selection bias. Pricing remains a legitimate concern with documented overcharges; customers should obtain multiple quotes and verify all charges in writing. The company appears reliable for basic service execution but carries elevated risk for fair pricing and honest diagnostics.

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.