Find Nearby Plumbers In Nampa, Idaho

All Star Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — dozens of reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, communication, and responsiveness including after-hours and emergency availability. Experience and workmanship are consistently highlighted across a wide range of job types including full repiping, sewer line replacement, water heater installs, and emergency leak repairs. Project completion is generally strong, with most reviewers reporting jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, though two negative reviews specifically cite a failed callback after a new water heater began leaking and a pattern of missed appointments — these meaningfully drag the completion score down. Pricing is viewed favorably by most reviewers, with several explicitly noting All Star beat competitor quotes, though one 2-star review alleged a significantly inflated estimate and one 1-star review described a $2,000+ quote for a water heater installation as predatory, introducing meaningful downward pressure on the pricing score.

• Seven reviews contain no text at all (labeled 'unknown' or blank) and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute only to total review count.
• The majority of highly positive reviews share similar phrasing patterns (prompt, courteous, professional, knowledgeable) which is common for genuine reviews in this industry but warrants mild caution.
• Two 1-star reviews and two 2-star reviews raise specific concerns: one describes a leaking water heater with no follow-up from the company, one describes repeated missed appointments and poor responsiveness from Jennifer, one alleges a technician lied about a shut-off valve to manufacture an emergency upsell, and one describes a $2,000+ water heater quote as predatory — these are credible negative signals and are factored into scoring.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 20+) are dated 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps, suggesting possible batch import or platform migration rather than organic posting — this does not necessarily indicate fake reviews but reduces confidence in the date accuracy of those entries.
• Many reviews are older than 3 years (2013–2021 range), which limits their relevance to current service quality. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more heavily weighted in scoring.
• One review references 'All Stay Plumbing' and another 'All Start' — likely typos for the same company, treated as valid reviews.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable content and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with awareness that a small cluster of credible negative reviews — particularly around follow-through, appointment reliability, and one alleged upsell — indicate the company is not without meaningful service failures.

Plumbing Pro has a strong overall reputation built on consistent praise for punctuality, neatness, and friendly staff across many reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by two notable negative reviews: one describing a no-show with no apology, and another calling workers unprofessional and sloppy. Pricing receives a moderate score because while many reviewers call prices reasonable or fair, at least two reviews explicitly flag pricing concerns — one warning to get a price upfront and one describing outlandish estimates — which meaningfully drags the dimension down. Project completion is solid with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished cleanly and thoroughly, though one review explicitly states the plumber could not fix the problem and another describes an unfinished job with unreachable phone contact. Experience scores well based on multiple specific mentions of knowledgeable, skilled technicians who explained issues clearly and solved complex problems.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (2023-12-07) appears to be a near-exact duplicate of a review dated 2024-06-09, with identical detailed text about Jimmy and Christopher. This may indicate a copied or fake review and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• The review 'Great cheers mate!' (2022) and 'Good Job' (2019) are too vague to score on any dimension and were excluded from dimension analysis.
• The review marked 'unknown' (2016) and the single period '.' review (2017) were excluded as non-informative.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2008–2019. Recency weighting was applied by giving greater interpretive weight to reviews from 2023–2025, which remain largely positive but include the no-show complaint from 2021.
• No strong fake review pattern detected beyond the one duplicate, but the high volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no detail warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large and diverse review set with sufficient mentions across all four dimensions, making it moderately reliable, though the presence of several blank reviews, one likely duplicate, and a meaningful minority of negative reviews across professionalism, pricing, and project completion means the score should be interpreted as a cautiously positive assessment rather than an unqualified endorsement.

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.

The majority of reviews speak highly of professionalism, punctuality, responsiveness, and friendly attitudes from named technicians including Brad, Kenneth, Derwin, Mike, and others, which drives the professionalism score upward. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, with one reviewer specifically shocked at how affordable the work was and several others calling it reasonably priced, though one reviewer flagged an aggressive payment threat text within 24 hours of invoicing and another noted an upsell attempt, tempering the pricing score. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to three notable negative reviews: one describing a no-show on the first day of a contracted job with no communication, one describing a months-long delay and failure to complete work requiring a refund, and one describing a catastrophic custom home plumbing failure with multiple unresolved issues. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge, problem-solving, and quality of workmanship, but the severe negative review describing incorrect main plumbing installation on a custom home significantly tempers this dimension. The volume of blank-text 5-star reviews is a concern and reduces overall confidence in the aggregate rating picture.

• 25 out of 72 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be used for dimensional scoring and inflate the apparent review count without providing verifiable evidence of quality.
• Suspected fake or low-effort review padding: the high proportion of blank 5-star reviews with no detail is a common pattern associated with review manipulation. Confidence in the raw star average is reduced accordingly.
• One review (1-star, 2019) describes a contractor who did not show up on the first day of a signed contract and was completely unresponsive — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (1-star, 2022) describes hiring the company in November 2021, receiving no completed work, and waiting until end of January 2022 for a refund — flagged as unprofessional and incomplete work.
• One review (1-star, 2017) describes a major custom home plumbing failure including incorrect main line installation, non-functional fixtures, a sewer smell from an improperly sized vent, and a demand for $12,000 to fix the contractor's own mistake — this is a severe workmanship and accountability failure.
• One review (2-star, no date) describes receiving a threatening payment disconnect text less than 24 hours after invoicing — flagged as a professionalism and customer relations concern.
• A significant number of reviews lack dates, making recency weighting impossible for approximately 20 reviews. Reviews with confirmed dates span 2015 to 2025, meaning some older negative reviews may reflect past rather than current performance.
• The business appears to operate under at least two names — 'Big Dawg Plumbing' and 'Great Plumbing Service' — with different named technicians across review sets. It is unclear if these are the same entity or affiliated companies, which may affect score reliability.

The WW Score of 79.2 carries moderate-to-high reliability given the large number of substantive reviews, but is meaningfully tempered by three serious negative reviews describing abandoned work, non-completion, and a major workmanship failure, as well as a large volume of blank 5-star reviews that suggest possible review padding and cannot be used as evidence of quality.

Sean demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness. His technical expertise is evident in problem-solving and diagnostic work, and pricing is described as reasonable with no hidden charges. Project completion is reliable with repeat customers and follow-through on commitments. However, the review set is small (5 total) and heavily dated (4 of 5 from 2015–2017), limiting confidence in current performance. One minor communication delay was noted but contextualized as an exception.

• Review recency concern: 80% of reviews are older than 6 years (2015–2017). Only 1 review from recent period (2020). Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• Small sample size: Only 5 reviews analyzed. Scores are based on limited data points and should be treated as preliminary.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective is atypical and reduces confidence.

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for current decision-making due to severely outdated review data (most from 2015–2017) and a very small sample size. A more recent review set is essential before relying on this score.

Anderson Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning many years and what appears to be multiple locations or franchises operating under the same name. Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and clean workmanship. Project completion scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of faulty workmanship requiring a third-party fix — these negative signals are explicit and credible. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while a notable cluster of negative reviews specifically cite hidden charges, misquoted prices, and billing for invoice-writing time, reducing confidence in consistent pricing transparency. Experience scores are generally high, with many reviewers praising diagnostic accuracy and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe technicians who failed to identify root causes or created new problems, preventing a higher score.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference a very large number of different named technicians (Sam, Neil, Chris, Greg, Mark, Andrew, Justin, Francisco, Richard, Carson, Andre, Jimmy, James, Norbert, Caleb, Ryan, Wes, Dale, Zane, Pat, Craig, Gilbert, Bill, Tim, Tony, and others) across dates spanning 2004–2025. This strongly suggests these reviews aggregate multiple distinct Anderson Plumbing businesses in different cities/states rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any one business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews have no date (Date: None). Several of these are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great work and great price!', 'I highly Recommend them and will definitely be using them again.', 'These gentlemen were the absolute best.'). These undated reviews lack specifics and may inflate positive sentiment. Confidence in undated reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with dates fall between 2020 and 2025, with a meaningful tail going back to 2004. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) may not reflect current service quality and have been weighted less heavily in scoring.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Multiple explicit negative reviews describe hidden charges, billing for travel/invoice time, misquoted prices, and charges significantly above initial estimates. Two reviews describe being charged $400+ more than quoted without authorization. This creates a meaningful downward pressure on the pricing score despite many positive pricing mentions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION NEGATIVES: At least 6 reviews describe explicit no-shows or abandoned work (2010, 2016, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024). One review describes faulty installation of a p-trap that failed twice and was installed backwards. One review describes a PRV installation that broke and was never remedied. These are serious completion failures that materially reduce the project completion score.
• WORKMANSHIP NEGATIVES: At least 3 reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose the correct problem, with a subsequent plumber identifying the real issue. One review describes a technician who created a new leak while fixing another. These reduce the experience score from what would otherwise be very high.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed. Several blank 1-star and 2-star reviews suggest dissatisfied customers who did not elaborate.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (296 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score strong statistical weight; however, reliability is meaningfully reduced by the strong likelihood that these reviews represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the Anderson Plumbing name across different cities and states, by a recurring pattern of no-show and pricing complaints that are explicit and credible, and by a cluster of undated generic reviews that may artificially inflate positive sentiment.