Find Nearby Plumbers In Idaho Falls, Idaho

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.

Brennon receives genuinely strong praise for technical skill, speed of service, and friendliness when he does show up — multiple reviewers highlight quality workmanship, helpful advice, and affordable pricing. However, two reviews (one rated 1-star, one rated 3-star) raise serious concerns about reliability and follow-through: he accepted payment upfront, failed to appear on multiple scheduled occasions, and in one case never completed the job at all. These are not minor complaints — they directly undermine the project completion and professionalism dimensions. The positive reviews are specific and credible, but so are the negative ones, creating a genuinely mixed picture that prevents a high overall score.

• Two reviews explicitly describe no-show behavior after upfront payment was collected — this is a significant red flag for trustworthiness and reliability.
• The 1-star review (Feb 2024) describes a pattern of broken promises and complete failure to finish work, which is the most serious concern in this dataset.
• The 3-star review (Jan 2024) corroborates the no-show pattern independently, lending credibility to both negative accounts.
• No fake review patterns detected — positive reviews contain specific details (garbage disposal, kitchenette install, basement water system) and vary in language, suggesting authenticity.
• Recency note: The two most recent reviews (Oct 2024 and Feb 2024) are split — one very positive, one very negative — so recency does not clearly favor either direction.
• Small sample size (6 reviews total) limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the review set is small but internally consistent, with credible positive and negative signals that reflect a contractor with genuine skill but a documented pattern of scheduling failures and incomplete project follow-through.

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.

Integrity Plumbing shows mixed performance across a small sample of reviews. Professionalism is moderately supported with mentions of on-time arrivals, knowledgeable technicians, and responsive scheduling across multiple reviews. However, a critical pricing complaint involving warranty fraud allegations and unprofessional management response (office staff yelling at customer) significantly undermines trust. Project completion appears solid with timely service and thorough work noted, while technical expertise is demonstrated but mentioned in only 2 reviews. The company's overall score is dragged down substantially by the serious pricing and customer service integrity issue.

• CRITICAL: One review alleges warranty fraud (charging for covered part) and unprofessional management conduct (office staff yelling at customer for negative review). This is a serious red flag for business practices and customer service integrity.
• Very small sample size (3 reviews only) limits reliability of scoring. Two positive reviews are generic in praise with minimal specific detail, while the negative review is highly specific and damaging.
• Recency concern: Most recent review is from November 2023, but one review is from January 2022 (nearly 2 years old). The fraud allegation is from March 2023, suggesting ongoing issues.
• Potential pattern: Two 5-star reviews use similar generic language ('amazing service,' 'outstanding service,' 'couldn't be happier') with limited specifics, while the 1-star review is detailed and credible. This asymmetry warrants caution.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and the presence of a serious, specific allegation of warranty fraud paired with unprofessional management response. The score is heavily influenced by one damaging review, and additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable performance trends.

Top Notch shows mixed performance across a very small sample size. The detailed first review reveals significant project completion failures (incomplete work on the primary request to fill and bleed the system) and poor communication during the service visit, though the manager's follow-up was appreciated. The second review praises quick, effective service. Pricing appears reasonable ($59 service fee, $350 for the second visit), but the first customer paid $350 without problem resolution. Experience level is evidenced by senior technicians, though judgment and troubleshooting approach were questioned in the complex boiler case. With only 2 reviews, confidence in this score is inherently limited.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score reliability is severely limited and should not be used for major decisions
• Extreme polarity: one 3-star detailed negative review vs. one 5-star generic positive review — suggests small sample bias
• First review contains specific, detailed complaints about incomplete work and communication failures; second review is generic praise with minimal detail
• Recency: both reviews from 2024 (June and October), so recency is not a concern
• No evidence of fake reviews, but the stark contrast between reviews and small sample size makes overall assessment unreliable

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient sample size (only 2 reviews). The score reflects conflicting evidence and cannot reliably predict future performance. At least 5-10 additional reviews are needed before this score becomes actionable.

Advanced Home Services presents a deeply split profile: a large volume of recent 5-star reviews praise individual technicians by name for being friendly, knowledgeable, and communicative, driving moderate scores in professionalism and experience. However, these positive reviews are heavily counterbalanced by a substantial and consistent body of negative reviews spanning over a decade that allege systematic price gouging, bait-and-switch tactics, misdiagnosis, predatory upselling targeting elderly customers, and failure to complete jobs or honor appointments. The pricing dimension is severely penalized because dozens of independent negative reviewers — many with specific dollar comparisons — describe charges 2x to 10x higher than competitors for identical work, and this pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss. Project completion also suffers significantly due to multiple credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and work left incomplete or done incorrectly. The contrast between the glowing recent reviews and the detailed, specific negative reviews raises serious concerns about review authenticity.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., 'Logan and Robert are knowledgeable and creates a trust', 'Ender was thorough in his inspection and very professional', 'Aaron has fortunately, unfortunately', 'Jesus Bello did a great job', 'The service repairman was here on time', 'Kaydon explained everything', 'Great work and understanding what needed to be done', 'Robert did an awesome job with the inspection/tune up', 'Glad he came, he found a vole nest', 'He done an excellent job', 'Scheduled an appointment for my main line', 'Ender did a awesome job both friendly', 'Mar2025 - Logan came out', 'We had toilet blockage and Michael', 'Awesome work on furnace and air conditioning'). These duplicates appear to have been submitted twice with dates approximately 2-3 days apart, which is a strong indicator of artificial review inflation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large cluster of recent reviews (June 2025) are suspiciously concentrated in a very short time window, many naming specific technicians with generic praise and no verifiable detail. Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings are present and provide no usable data but inflate the star average.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Across reviews spanning 2009 to 2025, at least 35 independent reviewers describe being quoted prices 2x to 10x higher than competitors for identical work. Multiple reviewers obtained second opinions and had the same job completed for a fraction of the price. This is not isolated — it is a documented, long-term business practice.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company targets elderly and vulnerable customers with fear tactics, inflated diagnoses, and high-pressure sales. This is mentioned in at least 8 separate reviews.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviewers report technicians fabricated or grossly exaggerated problems (e.g., cracked heat exchangers that did not exist, collapsed sewer lines fixed for $150 elsewhere, water heater age misrepresented by 4 years) to justify expensive replacements.
• NO-SHOW AND APPOINTMENT FAILURES: At least 6 reviews describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without proactive notification, including cases where customers took time off work.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, incorrect installations causing damage (flooding), and the company refusing to return calls or honor callbacks to fix their own errors.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024-2025 and cluster heavily in May-June 2025. The majority of detailed negative reviews span 2009-2024. The recent positive surge, combined with confirmed duplicate reviews, suggests a coordinated effort to improve the star rating artificially.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data but are noted as they inflate the overall star average.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust for the positive dimensions: the volume of credible, specific, and long-running negative reviews — particularly around pricing, misdiagnosis, and predatory sales practices — combined with confirmed duplicate reviews and a suspicious cluster of recent 5-star reviews, strongly suggests the positive review pool has been artificially inflated, meaning the true customer experience is likely worse than the calculated scores for professionalism and experience indicate.