Find Nearby Plumbers In Idaho Falls, Idaho

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.

Chris demonstrates strong professionalism across all reviews, with consistent praise for courtesy, efficiency, and personable demeanor. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of timely work and follow-through on repairs. Pricing feedback is limited but positive, with one reviewer explicitly noting fair value for emergency Saturday service. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident from successful drain and leak repairs. However, the small sample size (4 reviews) and presence of a duplicate review limit confidence in the overall score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews 3 and 4 are identical in text and date (2022-02-01), suggesting possible data entry error or fake review. This reduces confidence in the dataset.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of four reviews are from 2022-2023, with the oldest being nearly 2 years old. Limited recent data (only 2 reviews from 2023).
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 total reviews analyzed. Recommend collecting additional reviews before making high-confidence business decisions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews, with one being a duplicate), limited recency, and absence of any negative feedback or detailed pricing information. The score reflects consistently positive sentiment but lacks sufficient volume and diversity to be considered highly reliable.

Chaud Company Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across multiple reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented, with particular recognition for thorough problem-solving and knowledge. Project completion is solid with timely service delivery and follow-through. However, pricing presents a significant concern: one detailed 1-star review explicitly warns of overpricing and unnecessary upsells, with the customer obtaining the same service elsewhere for 84% less cost. This pricing concern substantially offsets otherwise strong performance. Additionally, most reviews are 4+ years old, limiting recency validation.

• PRICING CONCERN: One credible 1-star review (2020-04-29) explicitly alleges overpricing and unnecessary work recommendations. Customer obtained same initial service from competitor for $75 vs. $475 quote, and warned issues never materialized over 6 years. This is a specific, detailed complaint that cannot be dismissed.
• RECENCY ISSUE: 5 of 7 reviews are older than 4 years (2015-2020). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and earlier. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW PATTERN: 5 of 6 positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'thorough,' 'will definitely call again'). While not conclusive fake review evidence, the consistency is notable and suggests possible review curation or template responses.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recency (most data 4+ years old), a credible pricing complaint that contradicts the positive majority, and potential review pattern consistency. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects these limitations despite strong individual dimension scores.

Seldon Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous service. Project completion is solid, with most work finished as promised and callbacks honored. However, pricing feedback is mixed: four reviews praise fair and reasonable rates, while one review explicitly criticizes extremely high prices, creating significant variance in this dimension. Technical skill is generally strong, though the negative review raises concerns about quality control on complex installations. The company's age (20+ years mentioned) and repeat customer base suggest established experience, but the recent negative experience with improper connections and incomplete diagnostics tempers confidence in this area.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five reviews are from 2015–2019 (5–9 years old). Only one review is from the past 5 years. This limits the reliability of current performance assessment.
• PRICING CONTRADICTION: Strong consensus on fair/low pricing in four reviews, but one recent review (2019) explicitly states 'extremely high' prices and accuses the company of taking customers 'to the cleaners.' This significant contradiction suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or highly variable customer expectations.
• QUALITY CONTROL FLAG: The negative review documents a specific failure (dishwasher connection not tightened properly) that the owner initially missed on callback, suggesting potential quality assurance gaps despite the company's 20-year history.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews 1, 2, and 3 use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'fair price,' 'on time,' 'great work') and all are 5-star with generic praise. However, Review 4 provides specific negative details (connection not tightened, owner's boyfriend found the issue), which adds authenticity to the dataset overall. Review 5 also uses generic language but is older and less detailed.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to significant data age (most reviews 5–9 years old), a critical pricing contradiction, and a documented quality control incident that was not caught on first callback. The score reflects historical performance but may not accurately represent current service levels.

Mountain Valley Plumbing has a generally positive track record across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with many reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence. However, two significant negative reviews — one detailing overcharging, incomplete work, and a return-visit fee for a job already paid for, and another describing padding of bills, poor workmanship, and unprofessional conduct — meaningfully drag down scores in pricing and project completion. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers found rates competitive or outstanding, multiple reviewers explicitly noted the contractor was 'a little pricey' or described hidden or inflated charges. Project completion is also mixed, with at least one clear case of unfinished work and a disputed return-visit charge. Experience scores higher due to consistent praise for knowledgeability and problem-solving, though the 2016 negative review raises concerns about workmanship quality in isolated cases.

• Five reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single punctuation mark as text — these provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• Several older reviews (2011–2016) predate the most recent reviews by 7–12 years; business quality and ownership may have changed. Recency weighting applied — older reviews treated as lower weight.
• The 2016 negative review is extremely detailed and specific, describing systematic billing fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional behavior. This is a high-credibility negative signal despite its age.
• The 2023 negative review corroborates the billing concern pattern: overcharging beyond quoted price, incomplete work, and charging again for warranty callbacks — suggesting this may be a recurring issue rather than an isolated incident.
• Some 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'yes. i do recommend. fast n efficient', 'The service was good.', 'Tt went very well, he is terrific.') with no specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in the positive signal cluster.
• One review (2023-09-05) is entirely about a roadside medical emergency and contains zero plumbing-related content — it was excluded from all dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, but the presence of two detailed and credible negative reviews describing billing irregularities and incomplete work, combined with a large number of content-free reviews and a wide date range spanning over a decade, means consumers should weigh the negative reviews carefully rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.

Action Plumbing and Heating has a mixed but generally positive track record across its review history. Professionalism scores reasonably well, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication — however, this is offset by serious complaints including a misdirected appointment, a technician leaving a mess, and a plumber who failed to take responsibility for damage caused on the job. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while a few reviewers noted fair or competitive pricing, multiple negative reviews describe significant overcharging, undisclosed cost increases, non-itemized receipts, and a charge to fix a technician's own mistake. Project completion is similarly mixed — several jobs were completed quickly and correctly, but there are documented cases of incomplete work, a sink requiring three return visits, broken equipment left unresolved, and old pipes left in place after a full repipe job. Experience scores moderately, with standout positive examples such as Kyle's thorough boiler zone diagnosis and the creative wye joint repair, but dragged down by the stripped anode rod bolt, the broken tankless water heater, and the poorly installed kitchen sink.

• Two reviews consist only of a period ('.') with no substantive content — these were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• One review ('unknown') and one review ('Great') contain no actionable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2011–2022. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting is limited and the current service quality may differ from historical patterns.
• The 2023-12-15 review raises a concern about Action Plumbing routing calls to a third-party contractor (JT Plumbing) without customer disclosure — this is a significant transparency and accountability flag.
• The 2012 review describes a highly detailed and serious pattern of misconduct including broken equipment, unauthorized placement of a water heater, inflated billing with no itemization, and unfinished work. This is a major project completion and pricing red flag.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several older 5-star reviews are generic and lack specifics. These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews spanning over a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews, the presence of several content-free submissions, and a pattern of serious negative incidents that suggest inconsistent service quality depending on the technician or job type.