Find Nearby Plumbers In Nampa, Idaho

Excel Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (85.2), experience/skill (86.4), and project completion (84.6). The company excels at punctuality, communication, technical knowledge, and work quality, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians like Luke, Yuri, Bob, and Kevin. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (72.1), with recurring complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and perceived overpricing relative to the work performed. While most recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal persistent pricing concerns and occasional service failures that have not been fully resolved.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (spanning 2014-2025) report unexpectedly high quotes, hidden charges, and perceived overpricing. Examples include $450 for 20 minutes of drain work, $250 for a simple faucet replacement, $500 for toilet flange/wax ring, and significant quote increases after initial estimates. This pattern suggests systemic pricing transparency issues.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 include 3 empty reviews with 5-star ratings and 2 identical reviews with identical phrasing ('I spoke with Lori, who was very friendly and helpful. She got back to me within minutes, fantastic response time. The overall experience was excellent, and the price I was quoted felt great. Highly recommend!') dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05. This suggests potential review manipulation or duplicate submissions.
• SERVICE FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete work, follow-up failures, and quality issues. Examples include: ejector pump not resealed/reconnected properly (2024-06-15), sewage left on floor after drain cleaning (2023-08-17), sump line misdiagnosis leaving customer worse off (2022-05-04), and multiple instances of plumbers not following up on promised estimates (2020-07-25, 2016-08-08).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians, others report poor workmanship from different technicians at the same company, suggesting inconsistent quality control or training standards.
• RECENCY BIAS: The majority of highly positive reviews are from the past 6 months (2025), while older reviews (2014-2022) contain more critical feedback about pricing and service quality. This temporal distribution warrants caution in interpreting the overall score.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence, which are consistently praised across 187+ mentions, but should be interpreted cautiously regarding pricing fairness—the 72.1 pricing score reflects genuine and recurring customer concerns documented across a decade of reviews, and potential review manipulation in recent submissions reduces confidence in the most recent data.

Just-In-Time Plumbing and Pirates Plumbing demonstrate strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism scores highest (86.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across 142 reviews. Project completion (84.0) is solid with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, though a few complaints about incomplete work exist. Experience (85.5) reflects skilled technicians and quality workmanship mentioned in 97 reviews. Pricing (76.0) is the weakest dimension, with legitimate concerns about high costs, hidden charges, and overpricing in 58 reviews, though many customers also report fair pricing. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects a reliable contractor with strong service delivery but pricing concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2025-05-12, 2025-04-10, 2023-02-03, 2022-05-20, 2018-09-13, 2018-06-14, 2019-12-07, 2016-03-23) report significantly overpriced services, hidden charges, or bait-and-switch pricing tactics. One customer was quoted $1,800 but charged $2,500 for weekend service; another paid $200 for two simple fittings; a third received a $22,250 quote when work was completed elsewhere for $8,000.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews (2020-05-10, 2018-06-04, 2018-10-15) indicate incomplete work, improper repairs (wax seal not replaced properly), and lack of accountability when problems recur. One customer had to hire a different plumber to properly acid-wash the sewer line after Just-In-Time's incomplete work.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2022-02-01, 2021-02-15) report difficulty reaching the company, unreturned calls, and missed appointments despite being scheduled.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Owner Justin has been described in some reviews as defensive, argumentative, or dismissive when customers raise concerns (2023-02-03, 2021-03-20, 2014-09-27). One review noted gaslighting behavior when disputing charges.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: Approximately 15-20 reviews from 2022-06-10 and 2021-06-10 contain only ratings with no text, and many reviews from 2025-06-02 through 2025-05-10 use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'great job,' 'highly recommend') with suspiciously generic praise. This suggests possible review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2018-2020) contain more balanced feedback including legitimate criticisms. Recent reviews lack the specificity and nuance of earlier reviews.
• INCONSISTENT STANDARDS: The company appears to operate under two different service models—sometimes going above and beyond (free service calls, phone troubleshooting), other times charging premium rates for minimal work. This inconsistency suggests variable quality control or selective service standards.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but MODERATE confidence for pricing. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and generally reliable service delivery, but pricing practices are a significant concern with documented evidence of overcharging and hidden fees. Recent reviews show suspicious patterns of generic 5-star ratings that reduce confidence in the most current feedback. Customers should obtain multiple quotes, clarify pricing upfront in writing, and be prepared to dispute charges if they appear excessive.

Master Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, communication, and knowledgeable work. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and follow-through, with multiple serious complaints about no-shows, abandoned work, poor callbacks, and unresolved issues. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair and reasonable rates, while others cite high costs or unexpected charges. Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews reveal systemic problems with accountability and customer service that appear partially resolved over time.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe project completion failures documented—no-shows on scheduled appointments (2022, 2015, 2008), work left incomplete (2022, 2008), and technicians ghosting customers after payment (2022, 2009). These are not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Serious follow-up and callback failures—customers reporting inability to reach company for warranty issues, repairs, and damage assessment (2022, 2009, 2008). One customer reported manager hanging up phone (2023).
• PATTERN: Significant quality control issues in older reviews—incorrect installations, damaged property during jobs, undersized systems, and poor workmanship that required re-repair by other companies (2022, 2008, 2007).
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are almost uniformly 5-star with generic praise and minimal specifics. Reviews from 2022-2023 show serious complaints. This suggests either significant operational changes or potential review manipulation in recent period.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple complaints about unexpected charges, high hourly rates ($175/hour noted as surprise), and quotes that don't match final bills (2008, 2015). Some customers report fair pricing; others report being overcharged.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews mention many different technicians (Doug, Meir, Jim, Kyle, Steve, Scott, etc.), making it difficult to assess whether issues are company-wide or individual. Quality appears highly variable by technician.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Recent reviews (2025) contain repetitive structure, minimal detail, and suspiciously consistent 5-star ratings with vague praise ('Great service,' 'awesome,' 'highly recommend'). Multiple blank/minimal-text 5-star reviews suggest possible review padding.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple locations (San Francisco, Boise, Idaho, Mountain View, etc.), suggesting either multiple locations or franchises with inconsistent quality standards.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent 2025 reviews are uniformly positive, historical data (2022-2023) reveals serious systemic issues with project completion, follow-through, and customer service that directly contradict the current narrative. The company may have improved significantly, but the recent review pattern shows signs of potential manipulation (generic praise, minimal detail, high concentration of 5-stars). Customers should verify current operational practices independently and request specific technician references before committing to major work.

Grover's demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism (friendly, helpful staff; responsive to customer needs) and project completion (customers report successful outcomes and problem-solving). Experience scores are solid but tempered by one significant negative review from 2019 citing incorrect technical advice on conduit sizing. Pricing is competitive with big-box stores and transparent. The business excels at customer service and product availability, though technical expertise appears inconsistent across staff members.

• One highly negative review from 2020-08-01 (1-star) citing unprofessional behavior and harassment regarding mask-wearing; this review is 4+ years old and may reflect isolated incident or staff turnover
• One critical review from 2019-04-02 (2-star) alleging incorrect technical advice on electrical conduit sizing; customer claims inspector approved their installation per NEC standards, suggesting possible staff knowledge gap in electrical codes
• Most positive reviews (7 of 12) are 5-star with enthusiastic language; however, reviews contain specific details (customer names, product types, problem-solving approaches) that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews
• Review recency: 4 reviews from 2024, 1 from 2023, 1 from 2022, 2 from 2020, 2 from 2019, 1 from 2018, 1 from 2015; majority are recent (past 2 years), which strengthens confidence

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable and should be trusted, based on 12 reviews with good recency distribution and specific, verifiable details; however, the score reflects genuine inconsistency in technical expertise across staff members, and customers should verify complex technical advice independently.

Wickstrom Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. Project completion is generally reliable, though some reviews indicate occasional follow-up issues and communication gaps. Pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers citing high costs, unexpected fees, and concerns about value—particularly for diagnostic visits and routine repairs. The company excels in customer service and workmanship quality but struggles with transparent pricing and cost justification.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 22 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Multiple reviews cite high estimates, $39-$79 diagnostic fees, flat-rate pricing perceived as excessive (e.g., $600/hour equivalent), and lack of itemized invoices. Several customers report feeling overcharged or taken advantage of, particularly elderly customers.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Several reviews (2024-08-26, 2024-06-10, 2019-01-31) describe scheduling confusion, missed appointments, poor internal coordination, and lack of follow-up communication despite initial professionalism.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: A few reviews (2024-10-07, 2024-10-03, 2014-05-13) describe incomplete work, inexperienced technicians learning on customer jobs, and damage to property (lawn, sprinkler systems) with inadequate remediation.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER REVIEWS: 11 reviews rated 1-2 stars reveal serious concerns: overcharging, poor diagnosis, unprofessional behavior (one detailed account of a manager's hostile conduct), failure to honor commitments, and alleged predatory practices toward elderly customers.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while critical reviews are older (2013-2024). This may indicate recent service improvements or potential review filtering.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from June 2025 contain minimal detail, generic praise, and identical 5-star ratings with no substantive content. Several blank reviews (empty text, 5-star rating) suggest possible review padding.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Company charges diagnostic fees ($39-$79) but some reviews indicate these are waived under service plans, creating confusion about true costs.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing technical competence and professionalism but should be interpreted cautiously regarding pricing fairness—the company's pricing practices represent a material weakness that significantly impacts overall customer satisfaction despite strong workmanship ratings. The HIGH overall confidence is tempered by the substantial volume of pricing complaints and quality inconsistencies documented in negative reviews.

JRS Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (85.3) and experience (84.6). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical competence, as evidenced by extensive positive feedback on responsiveness, friendliness, and knowledgeable workmanship. Project completion scores (82.1) reflect generally reliable follow-through, though a small number of callbacks and one no-show incident slightly temper this dimension. Pricing (76.8) is the weakest dimension, with legitimate concerns about cost fairness in several cases, though most reviews praise competitive rates. The WW Score of 81.2 reflects a solid, trustworthy contractor with minor vulnerabilities in pricing consistency and occasional service lapses.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews cite unexpectedly high charges or price gouging, particularly during emergencies (2021 winter storm reviews, $800 quote vs. $30 DIY fix). Several customers report being charged for service calls or full hours when minimal work was required. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices or opportunistic charging during high-demand periods.
• ANGRY CUSTOMER INCIDENTS: Two reviews (Jan 2024, Aug 2023) describe aggressive, threatening behavior from technicians/owner when customers questioned charges or requested refunds. One customer reported the technician 'yelled,' 'undid work,' and the customer feared physical assault. Another reported the owner and technician 'screaming' and being 'threatening.' These are serious red flags for customer safety and professionalism.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews report work that had to be redone by other plumbers (Dec 2012, Feb 2013), incorrect installations requiring callbacks (Jan 2024 garbage disposal), and poor problem diagnosis (attic water line job in July 2014 rated 2.0 stars—customer had to hire another plumber to redo work correctly at lower cost). One review notes plumber lacked familiarity with expensive faucet installation.
• NO-SHOW AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: One review (Oct 2013) reports a complete no-show with no callback after two voicemails left. Another review (Aug 2023) describes missed first appointment with no call, requiring customer to reschedule. These are significant reliability failures.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite unexpected charges, lack of transparency, or refusal to provide itemized receipts (Aug 2023 review—technician refused to provide receipt for parts, customer suspected price inflation). One review (July 2014) describes a $2,234 job that another plumber completed for significantly less, suggesting overcharging or poor assessment.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY STANDARDS: Reviews span multiple technicians (Jim, Jason, Caleb, Dexter, Joe, etc.) with highly variable quality. Some technicians receive glowing praise while others generate serious complaints. This suggests inconsistent hiring, training, or oversight.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews (pricing gouging, angry incidents, no-shows, quality issues) are from 2012–2024, with several from 2023–2024. Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2014–2018 and 2015–2017. This temporal pattern suggests potential recent decline in service quality or company culture.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40 reviews contain only a rating with no text or minimal text ('unknown,' 'N/A,' blank, single words like 'Great!' or 'Good Work!'). While not conclusive, this high volume of low-detail 5-star reviews (many from 2013–2018) may inflate the overall rating. However, the majority of substantive reviews are detailed and credible.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill, the recent pattern of serious incidents (aggressive customer interactions, billing disputes, no-shows, quality rework) and pricing inconsistencies—particularly in 2023–2024—suggests the company may not be as reliable as historical averages indicate. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, clarify pricing upfront, and be prepared to escalate disputes if service quality or behavior becomes problematic. The company's best work appears to have been delivered in the 2014–2018 period; recent reviews warrant skepticism.