Find Nearby Plumbers In Plummer, Idaho

Able Rooter has an overwhelmingly positive review record spanning over a decade, with professionalism, responsiveness, and punctuality cited consistently across the vast majority of reviews. Technicians — primarily Tom, but also Josh, Caleb/Calob, and others — are repeatedly praised for clear communication, arriving on time or early, explaining problems thoroughly, and going above and beyond expectations. Project completion scores well but is tempered by a small number of meaningful negative reviews: one customer reported a leak was never properly fixed and a callback was ignored, another reported a no-show that ruined their entire day, and a commercial customer alleged a warranty promise was broken and an additional charge was levied. Pricing is generally praised as fair and transparent, with several reviewers specifically noting Able Rooter was significantly cheaper than competitors; however, at least two reviewers flagged pricing concerns — one calling the cost 'pricy' for a 10-minute job and another noting the cost felt high relative to the work performed — which moderates the pricing score. Experience scores strongly, with numerous reviewers noting that Able Rooter succeeded where other companies had failed, used appropriate tools, and provided knowledgeable advice on prevention and next steps.

• Four reviews carry a 1-star rating and contain substantive negative content: (1) a customer reporting an unresolved leak and ignored callback (2017), (2) a customer reporting a no-show appointment that wasted their entire day (2015), (3) a commercial customer alleging a broken warranty promise and unexpected additional charge (2014), and (4) a customer who ended the appointment because the technician refused to wear a mask (2020). These are credible negative signals and have been factored into scoring.
• Two reviews contain no text at all (blank body, one rated 5.0 in 2025, one rated 1.0 in 2022) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (rated 5.0, text 'unknown') was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• One review references a Spokane location while the majority of reviews reference the St. Louis area — this may indicate reviews from a different franchise or business location, which could affect score reliability if the businesses operate independently.
• The review corpus spans from 2012 to 2025. Approximately 25-30 reviews are older than 3 years, and roughly 15 are older than 5 years. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain approximately 35+ reviews, all strongly positive, suggesting current service quality remains high. Older negative reviews (2014, 2015, 2017) may reflect past issues that have since been resolved.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and described scenarios. Multiple reviews reference specific details (times, dollar amounts, named technicians, specific drain types) that are consistent with genuine customer experiences. The high volume of 5-star reviews is notable but appears organic given the specificity and variety of content.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and detailed review set spanning 13 years with strong recency, and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, users should note that a small but credible cluster of negative reviews — particularly around project follow-through and warranty honoring — introduces meaningful uncertainty into the project completion dimension that the score alone does not fully convey.

Noble Plumbing & Heating has an overwhelmingly positive review history spanning roughly 2010–2024, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, courteous behavior, shoe covers, cleanup, and clear communication — all strong professionalism indicators. Pricing is generally described as fair, reasonable, or better than competitors, though one 2024 review raises a legitimate concern about being charged two service call fees for a single incomplete repair, which tempers the pricing score. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting jobs were finished on time and as quoted, but a handful of reviews cite missed callbacks, a no-show appointment, an unreachable voicemail, and one instance where the job was not fully resolved on the first visit — preventing a top-tier score. Experience scores well, with multiple reviewers noting Richard and his team solved problems that other plumbers could not, demonstrated technical depth, and offered honest advice even when it cost them revenue. The score is modestly reduced by the heavy age of most reviews (the majority predate 2015) and a small number of negative responsiveness incidents.

• RECENCY WARNING: The overwhelming majority of reviews are from 2010–2014. Only a small number of reviews are from 2015 or later, with just one review from the past 12 months (2024). The WW Score is heavily influenced by older data and may not reflect current service quality.
• BLANK/UNKNOWN REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single punctuation mark ('.') with no usable text. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 3) cite failure to return calls or missed appointments. While most were resolved or explained, this is a recurring theme that warrants a flag.
• PRICING CONCERN (2024): The most recent review (March 2024, 2-star) explicitly criticizes being charged two service call fees for one incomplete repair with no prior disclosure. This is a substantive complaint and was weighted accordingly in the pricing score.
• POTENTIAL GENERIC PRAISE: A number of short reviews (e.g., 'Good no problem', 'It went great.', 'See above.', 'great.') provide minimal detail. While not conclusively fake, they add limited scoring value and were treated conservatively.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but should be treated with moderate practical caution given that most reviews are 8–14 years old and the most recent substantive review raises a pricing transparency concern.

Pace Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — technicians like Riley, Bailey, Derek, Hunter, and Nate are repeatedly praised for punctuality, courtesy, clear communication, and respect for customers' homes. Project completion scores well overall, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly and correctly, though a small number of negative reviews describe an incomplete drain clearing job, a failure to return calls, and a refusal to honor a warranty — these meaningfully suppress the completion score. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out transparent quotes, no hidden charges, and honest recommendations that saved customers money; however, one reviewer noted sticker shock on parts pricing and another found Roto-Rooter $100 cheaper after a failed job, keeping this score conservative. Experience scores well based on numerous mentions of skilled diagnostics, knowledgeable explanations, and successful resolution of complex issues including slab leaks, frozen pipes, and multi-system installs. The score is tempered slightly by a handful of negative experiences involving poor communication, unprofessional conduct by one technician, and at least one instance of work left incomplete.

• 20 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• One review (2014) appears to be for Mr. Rooter, not Pace Plumbing, and was excluded from scoring as it references a different company entirely.
• One review explicitly states the reviewer has never used Pace Plumbing for services (based on a real estate interaction only) — this was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review is from a former employee, which introduces potential bias; it was treated with reduced weight.
• There are 4 negative reviews (1-star) that describe serious issues: incomplete work with pipes left with an uncovered hole, refusal to honor warranty, owner dismissing customer concerns, failure to respond to a water emergency, and a rude technician who left abruptly. These are low in volume relative to total reviews but are substantive and credible, and they meaningfully impact project completion and professionalism scores.
• The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star, which warrants mild fake review scrutiny. However, most positive reviews contain specific technician names, job descriptions, and situational details (e.g., the January/February 2025 freeze event), which strongly suggests authenticity. Fake review risk is LOW.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-02 with no text and only 5-star ratings is slightly suspicious but not conclusive of manipulation given the broader review pattern.
• Recency note: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2024-2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older negative reviews (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) are present and were included but given reduced weight relative to recent reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews with strong recency and high specificity, making it one of the more reliable assessments possible; however, the presence of credible negative reviews describing incomplete work, warranty disputes, and communication failures means the score should not be interpreted as a near-perfect rating, and prospective customers should be aware of these documented failure cases.

Five Star Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (84.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness. Project completion scores (83.1) reflect reliable job finishing and follow-through, though some negative reviews cite incomplete work or scheduling issues. Pricing (78.2) shows the most variability—while many customers praise fair rates and value, a notable subset reports overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, and estimates that don't match final bills. Experience (81.6) is consistently validated through technical competence and problem-solving, though a few reviews question diagnostic accuracy. The company operates across multiple locations with varying quality consistency.

• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY ACROSS LOCATIONS: Reviews span multiple geographic areas (San Antonio, San Diego, Florida, Oklahoma, etc.) with notably different service quality. Some locations show significantly more negative feedback than others, suggesting inconsistent management or training.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly mention overcharging, bait-and-switch pricing, estimates that don't match final invoices, and charges significantly higher than competitors for identical work. This is the most frequently cited complaint across the dataset.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, and poor responsiveness despite claims of 24-hour service. At least 12 reviews cite these issues.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Approximately 35 reviews rate 1-2 stars with specific complaints about dishonesty, rudeness, poor workmanship, or service failures. This represents ~7% of total reviews but suggests systemic issues beyond isolated incidents.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 25-30 reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('5 stars,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional and friendly,' minimal detail) with no substantive information. These cluster around specific dates (June 2025, June 2024, June 2023) suggesting possible bulk posting.
• HOME WARRANTY COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (8+) specifically cite problems when company is dispatched through home warranty programs, with complaints about rudeness, overcharging, and poor communication with warranty companies.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: Several reviews document jobs requiring multiple visits, unfinished work, or problems recurring shortly after repair, suggesting quality control issues.
• STAFF CONDUCT ISSUES: A few reviews mention rude technicians, aggressive driving behavior, and unprofessional communication, though these are less frequent than other complaint categories.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for overall service quality, but CAUTION is warranted regarding pricing transparency and consistency across locations—the pricing dimension (78.2) likely understates customer dissatisfaction due to the high volume of specific overcharging complaints that may not be fully captured in the scoring methodology. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show more positive sentiment than older reviews (2016-2020), suggesting possible recent management improvements, but the pricing and communication issues remain persistent concerns that warrant direct inquiry before hiring.

West Side Drain demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3. Professionalism is a clear strength (87.5), with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across 98 reviews. Project completion is solid (85.8) with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction across 89 mentions. Experience and technical skill are well-documented (84.1) with customers noting knowledgeable, efficient work. Pricing is the weakest dimension (76.2), with recurring complaints about high hourly rates, minimum charges, and lack of transparency on some service fees, though many customers also report fair pricing and value. The company shows strong responsiveness and customer service orientation, though pricing practices create some friction.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2017, 2018, 2020) cite high hourly rates ($150-$295/hour), minimum charges, and lack of itemized billing. However, many other reviews praise fair pricing. This suggests pricing may vary by service type or technician, creating customer confusion.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Three 1-star reviews (2022, 2018, 2017, 2012) cite poor communication, refusal to complete work, overcharging, and unprofessional behavior. One 2-star review (2022) describes significant property damage and poor follow-up. These are isolated but serious incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 40% of reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months) and are uniformly 5-star with generic praise. While recent reviews are positive, the concentration of recent 5-star reviews with minimal detail warrants caution. Older reviews (2009-2014) show more balanced feedback with specific details.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Two identical reviews appear (2018-08-12 and 2018-08-24) with same rating (3.0) and nearly identical text about Justin fixing a damaged pipe. This suggests possible data duplication rather than fake reviews.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 6 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings. These provide no usable data and may indicate incomplete submissions.
• OWNER RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews (2022, 2020) note owner Dave/David proactively contacted customers after negative experiences and issued refunds or credits. This demonstrates accountability but also suggests initial service failures occurred.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Named technicians (Victor, Arthur, Alex, Adam, Greg, Wyatt, Justin, Josh) receive consistent praise individually, but some technicians (Justin in 2018) received criticism for unprofessional behavior. Quality may depend on which technician is assigned.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence, supported by 152 reviews with substantial mentions across all dimensions. However, the score masks meaningful variation: professionalism and project completion are genuinely strong, but pricing practices are inconsistent and problematic for some customers. The recent concentration of uniformly positive 5-star reviews (2025) should be weighted slightly lower than older, more detailed reviews. Customers should expect professional, responsive service and quality workmanship, but should clarify pricing and fee structures upfront before engaging, as hourly rates and minimum charges have been sources of customer dissatisfaction.

A River City Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and project completion, with dozens of reviews praising friendly, communicative technicians who arrive promptly, explain their work thoroughly, and follow through to completion. Experience scores are similarly high, with multiple reviewers highlighting skilled diagnostics, problem-solving in complex situations, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score — a recurring pattern of complaints about unexpectedly high bills, lack of itemized invoices, undisclosed credit card surcharges, and quotes that changed mid-job suggests inconsistent pricing transparency. The single lowest-confidence dimension is pricing, yet it has enough mentions to carry full weight, and the negative signals there are credible and specific enough to warrant a significantly reduced score in that category.

• PRICING CONCERNS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 7 reviews across multiple years explicitly describe surprise charges, no upfront estimates, refusal to provide itemized invoices, undisclosed credit card surcharges, and rates perceived as excessive. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The review dated 2017-07-12 appears to have been submitted twice — once with a timestamp and once without — using nearly identical language. One instance was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review dated 2017-07-05 contains only a period ('.') with a 5-star rating and no usable content. It was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of reviews (approximately 40+) are dated 2025, with a heavy cluster in March–June 2025. Older reviews (2014–2021) show more mixed experiences including professionalism complaints. Recent reviews skew very positive, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large number of 5-star reviews mention the same technician pairs (Jesse and Josh, Aaron and Mike) in very similar contexts and within tight date windows. While the language varies enough to avoid a fake review flag, the clustering pattern warrants mild caution.
• PROFESSIONALISM COMPLAINT ON RECORD: Two reviews (2019) describe a technician (Dan) snapping at employees in front of customers, and one review describes a plumber as unpleasant and malodorous. These are older but specific and credible complaints that modestly reduce the professionalism score.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2020) alleges a technician removed and kept a faucet aerator without permission and never returned it despite promising to do so. Another reviewer (2024) states no one called back after expressing dissatisfaction. These suggest occasional follow-through failures at the customer service level.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the pricing dimension reveals a persistent and well-documented weakness that meaningfully lowers the composite score and should be a primary consideration for prospective customers.