Find Nearby Plumbers In Nampa, Idaho

Express Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for friendliness, politeness, and knowledge. Project completion is generally solid with most jobs finished as promised, though some scheduling and follow-up issues are noted. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about excessive charges, hidden fees, and quotes substantially higher than competitors. The company shows inconsistency: many recent reviews (2025) are highly positive, but older reviews reveal recurring patterns of overpricing and billing disputes that suggest systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.

• PRICING PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews across different years (2020-2024) report similar pricing concerns—excessive labor rates, hidden charges, and quotes 3-4x higher than competitors. This is not isolated but appears to be a business model issue.
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Reviews from 2025 (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise and minimal specifics. Reviews from 2018-2024 show much more critical feedback. Recent reviews lack the detail and balance of older reviews, suggesting possible review management or selection bias.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Several 2025 reviews contain suspiciously similar phrasing ('very friendly,' 'very professional,' 'explained everything'), minimal detail, and all 5-star ratings. Examples: 'Very friendly service,' 'Excellent service, very friendly and explain everything,' 'always great service.' These lack the specificity and narrative depth of authentic reviews.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews report inexperienced technicians, misdiagnosis, and poor follow-up (e.g., 2023 HVAC installation failed city inspection multiple times; 2021 sewer diagnosis was incorrect; technician on phone with supervisor for 45 minutes unable to diagnose problem).
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING ISSUES: Several reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, and poor communication despite confirmation (2023, 2018, 2017). One customer took time off work and was rescheduled with a 5-hour window.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: 2023 review documents 6+ months of non-response after installation issues; customer unable to file warranty claims because company removed thermostat.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text, only ratings (all 5-star). These provide no usable data but inflate apparent satisfaction metrics.

This WW Score of 73.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill, the pricing dimension is severely underweighted due to limited explicit mentions (28), yet pricing complaints are pervasive and consistent across years. The recent flood of generic 5-star reviews (2025) conflicts sharply with detailed critical feedback from 2018-2024, suggesting recent reviews may not be fully representative. Customers seeking this company should prioritize obtaining detailed written quotes and comparing with competitors, as pricing appears to be the primary risk factor despite strong service quality ratings.

Drake Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across most recent reviews (2024-2025). However, significant pricing concerns emerge from multiple reviews citing excessive flat-rate charges, hidden fees, and quotes 4x higher than competitors. Project completion shows mixed results with some excellent follow-through but also documented cases of no-shows, abandoned work, and unresolved callbacks. Technical experience is generally solid with skilled technicians, though older reviews reveal inconsistent quality depending on which technician was assigned. The company's performance has notable variance between individual technicians and time periods.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews (2018-2025) explicitly cite excessive charges—$1,300 for 1-hour job, $300 for 45-minute service, quotes 4x competitors, $39 diagnostic fees while competitors charge nothing. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Several documented no-shows and no-call incidents (2023, 2020, 2018) with poor communication. One review reports 35-day delay with no follow-up despite multiple customer calls.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews note quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned. Some technicians praised, others criticized for poor diagnostics and incomplete work.
• MANAGEMENT/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple complaints about service managers not returning calls, not following up on promised callbacks, and dismissive responses to complaints (2024, 2023, 2015, 2014).
• RECENT POSITIVE TREND: Reviews from June 2025 and May 2025 are overwhelmingly 5-star with specific praise. However, reviews from April 2025 show one 2-star pricing complaint and one 1-star management complaint, suggesting ongoing issues despite recent improvements.
• OLDER REVIEWS (2008-2015): Many 5-star reviews with generic praise and 'unknown' text fields suggest possible data quality issues or placeholder reviews from that era.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One 2014 review documents gas leak caused by Drake that went unresolved for days with poor emergency response and no guidance to customer on safety measures.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial data (120 reviews, 68+ mentions per dimension). However, the score masks significant bifurcation: recent reviews (2024-2025) trend toward 5-star professionalism and experience, while pricing complaints are consistent across all time periods and project completion shows persistent operational issues (no-shows, delays, poor follow-up). Customers should expect strong technical work and professional technicians but should obtain multiple quotes, clarify all-in pricing upfront, and confirm appointment details in writing due to documented scheduling and communication failures.

Alpha Omega Plumbing and Septic has a large and mixed review base spanning multiple years and what appears to be at least two distinct service areas and possibly two different business entities operating under the same or similar name — one focused on septic/plumbing in the high desert/Southern California area and one focused on water heater warranty work in the San Jose/Bay Area (associated with 'Frank'). Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a recurring and serious pattern of unanswered calls, no-shows, and poor communication, particularly in the Frank/Bay Area reviews, with at least 8 reviews explicitly citing failure to return calls or missed appointments. Pricing feedback is mixed — several reviews praise competitive or fair pricing, while others cite overpricing or surprise charges, resulting in a below-average score. Project completion is moderate; many jobs were completed well and quickly, but there are credible accounts of incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, and one instance of damage caused during service. Experience scores are similarly mixed — many reviewers praised technical knowledge and skill, but several credible negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and a failure to identify basic issues.

• POSSIBLE MIXED ENTITY: Reviews appear to represent at least two distinct operational contexts — a septic/plumbing company in the Southern California/High Desert area and a Bay Area water heater warranty service associated with 'Frank.' Scores may reflect blended performance across different teams, locations, and service types, reducing reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40+) are dated prior to 2022, with many from 2012–2017. These older reviews may not reflect current service quality. More recent reviews (2024–2025) are weighted more heavily but represent a smaller share of total data.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN — NEGATIVE FLAG: At least 8 separate reviews explicitly describe Frank/Alpha Omega failing to return phone calls or respond to messages over multiple days or weeks. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from the 2024–2025 septic service cluster are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Good service and work,' 'Very good Work I recommend these company,' 'Great customer service and their staff are amazing'). While not conclusive, the volume of short, undetailed 5-star reviews with identical dates warrants caution.
• PRICING CONCERN: One review explicitly cited a $950 overcharge for septic pumping compared to a competitor. Another review described surprise charges added at time of payment. These are credible pricing integrity concerns.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One detailed review described Alpha Omega caving in a seepage tank during a certification inspection and then claiming replacement was needed — a second opinion contradicted this. Another review described an incomplete garbage disposal installation that caused subsequent water damage.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (97 total) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the likely blending of two distinct business entities or service teams, a significant proportion of older reviews, a documented pattern of non-responsiveness, and moderate suspicion of generic 5-star padding in recent reviews — treat this score as a cautious baseline rather than a definitive quality indicator.

Anthony and Pipe-Ko Gas Piping receive consistently strong praise across professionalism, pricing, and technical skill, with multiple reviewers highlighting punctuality, clear communication, and thorough workmanship. Pricing is a notable strength, with several reviewers explicitly stating costs were lower than competitors or less than expected. Project completion scores well overall, though one reviewer noted scheduling difficulty due to Anthony's busy workload, and one 1-star review describes four unanswered calls with no callback, which meaningfully tempers the completion and professionalism scores. Experience scores are high, with reviewers describing Anthony as a craftsman who solves problems creatively and brings work up to code. The single negative review introduces a real concern about responsiveness that cannot be dismissed, even though it is from 2015.

• One 1-star review (2015) describes four unanswered calls and no callback — this is a direct negative signal for professionalism and responsiveness that must be weighted against otherwise positive reviews.
• Four of the six reviews are from 2014–2015, making them 9–10+ years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024) and one from 2020. The score should be interpreted cautiously given the age of most data.
• The most recent review (2024) is strongly positive and specific, which is a good signal, but a single recent review is insufficient to fully offset the age of the broader dataset.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating, and include specific job descriptions and named individuals, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability overall: the positive reviews are specific and credible, but the majority of data is over 9 years old, the sample size is small (6 reviews), and one documented responsiveness failure introduces a meaningful caveat that prospective customers should consider.

Kelso Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for responsiveness, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across multiple decades of service. However, the WW Score is significantly impacted by serious project completion failures documented in recent reviews (2021, 2014, 2006), including multiple no-shows, missed callbacks, and incomplete work requiring customer oversight. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though one 2006 review reported a bill double the quoted maximum. The company shows a troubling pattern of reliability issues that contradict its long-standing reputation, suggesting potential operational decline or inconsistency in service delivery.

• CRITICAL: Severe project completion failures in 2021 review—multiple no-shows and missed callbacks over extended period, indicating systemic scheduling/communication breakdown
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERN: 2014 review documents inadequate crew supervision, unqualified technician (Mike), customer-discovered defects requiring rework, and technician sleeping on job
• QUALITY DECLINE PATTERN: 2006 review alleges shoddy work post-ownership transition (Al Kelso retired, son took over), including installation error causing kitchen flood and incomplete work (water valve not fully opened, tools left on lawn)
• PRICING DISCREPANCY: 2006 review reports final bill double the quoted maximum ($90/hr × 2 hrs max = $180, actual bill ~$360)
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are 7+ years old (2006-2014); most recent reviews (2021, 2020) show mixed-to-negative experiences, suggesting service quality degradation over time
• INCONSISTENCY: Strong contrast between long-term customer loyalty testimonials (30-40 years of service) and recent critical failures, indicating possible recent operational or management issues

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW confidence due to significant recency concerns: the most recent reviews (2020-2021) reveal serious project completion failures contradicting the company's historical reputation, suggesting the score may not reflect current service reliability. The company's long-standing positive track record is substantially undermined by documented quality control and scheduling breakdowns in recent years.

The review set reveals a split picture between two apparent plumbers operating under or associated with this business — Gary and Eric — with meaningfully different feedback profiles. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by two serious negative reviews: one describing Eric as a no-show who ignored calls during an emergency, and another describing Gary's billing as opaque and unresponsive, with the customer ultimately refusing to rehire him. Pricing feedback is mixed, with several reviews calling the service affordable but one explicitly noting it was 'a bit expensive,' yielding a moderate score. Project completion is similarly mixed — most jobs described were finished, but one customer was left without service entirely after a no-show, and another declined to have Gary return for finish work due to trust issues. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviews praising quality workmanship, though one noted misaligned shower valves as a lasting defect. The overall picture is of an inconsistent operation with genuine capability but notable reliability and communication failures.

• 8 reviews contain only 'unknown', a single period, or 'as above' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no actionable data.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2012–2016 are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'They were professional, reasonable, and their work was good, I didn't have any problems.') with no specific details — mild fake review risk or padding cannot be ruled out.
• Two reviews dated 2000-05-01 with ratings of 5 and 1 respectively, and one from 2001, are over 20 years old and carry negligible weight in scoring.
• The majority of substantive reviews are from 2012–2018, meaning most usable data is 6–12+ years old. Only one review (2022) falls within the past 3 years, significantly limiting recency confidence.
• The business appears to involve at least two individuals (Gary and Eric), and negative reviews target both separately — this may indicate systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Two reviews from 2018-07-06 share nearly identical phrasing, timing, and subject matter (water heater replacement, affordability praise) — possible coordinated or duplicate review submission.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the age of most reviews, a high proportion of content-free submissions, two credible and detailed negative reviews that meaningfully offset generic positive feedback, and mild indicators of review padding — consumers should weight the detailed negative reviews heavily when making hiring decisions.