Find Nearby Plumbers In Twin Falls, Idaho

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.

Pete's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal long-term customers — many citing 10, 20, 25, even 39 years of repeat use — and the majority of technicians (Colin, Vince, Josh, James, Ron, Joey, Horacio, Frank) are praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 25–30 out of 163) reveals recurring systemic issues: missed or no-show appointments without notification, poor office communication and follow-through on estimates and callbacks, and at least several instances of work left incomplete or worsened. Pricing complaints are notable — multiple reviewers cite billing discrepancies, undisclosed hourly charges, and feeling overcharged — which meaningfully drags the pricing score below the otherwise positive sentiment. Project completion is similarly mixed: while most jobs are described as completed well, there are documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved problems after service, and refusal to honor callbacks. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is praised far more often than it is criticized, though a few reviews describe plumbers who were clearly out of their depth.

• CLUSTER OF NEAR-IDENTICAL COLIN SPENCER REVIEWS: Between December 2024 and February 2025, there are 14+ reviews all praising 'Colin' or 'Colin Spencer' with very similar structure, generic praise, and minimal job-specific detail. Several are posted on the same dates. This pattern is consistent with a coordinated or incentivized review campaign and should be treated with caution. Confidence in the professionalism score is slightly reduced as a result.
• 15 REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT: These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data beyond a star rating.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed are from 2024–2025 and carry full weight. Reviews from 2013–2019 are present and were considered but given reduced weight. Several older negative reviews (2014–2019) describe extreme unprofessionalism including profanity from staff and abandoned repipe jobs — these may reflect prior ownership or management and are noted but not fully weighted against current operations.
• REPEATED OFFICE/COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years describe the same pattern — no-shows, no callbacks, estimates never sent, and dismissive office staff. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING IRREGULARITIES: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe being overbilled, charged for time not worked, or surprised by undisclosed fees. One reviewer documented being billed $172 for a job quoted at $106 with the plumber in and out in under 15 minutes.
• ONE REVIEW (Jeremy/Anoka County) APPEARS TO BE FOR A DIFFERENT BUSINESS: The review referencing 'Jeremy' in 'Anoka County, Minnesota' does not match the Long Beach, CA location of Pete's Plumbing and may be a misattributed review. It was excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW (Paul/Metuchen) ALSO APPEARS MISATTRIBUTED: References 'Paul' and 'Metuchen' plumbers, inconsistent with Pete's Plumbing Long Beach. Excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, ~148 usable) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction — but the score should be interpreted cautiously given suspected coordinated positive reviews for one technician (Colin Spencer), documented recurring office and billing failures, and the possibility that current service quality differs from historical performance.

Able Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. On the positive side, a substantial majority of reviewers praise responsiveness, same-day availability, polite technicians, and fair pricing — with named plumbers like Rob, Nelson, Danilo, and Dwayne frequently cited for skill and professionalism. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across multiple years and involving different customers — describe serious recurring issues: poor workmanship requiring callbacks, failure to honor guarantees, pricing disputes with no transparency, and office staff who are dismissive or unresponsive. Project completion is the most contested dimension, with multiple reviews describing jobs that leaked after completion, were abandoned, or were never followed up on. Pricing scores are dragged down by several credible accounts of inflated labor charges, undisclosed hourly rates, and parts marked up well above retail — though many other customers found pricing fair or even better than competitors.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Called for a fix to a leak behind the wall of my upstairs bathroom. Rob (owner) came out...' appears twice with different dates (2024-06-06 and 2023-11-11) and identical text. This is a likely duplicate and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'I called Able in off hours and left a message...' (garbage disposal / Sa's Plumbing) appears twice with different dates (2023-06-07 and 2023-01-19) and near-identical text. Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Nope. I was horrified to find an Able plumber without a mask...' appears twice with different dates (2021-06-07 and 2020-10-10). Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Six reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, or single-word responses ('Great', 'The absolute best.'). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2016–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range, indicating persistent rather than isolated issues. No strong recency trend toward improvement or decline is clearly evident.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same failure modes — jobs that leaked after completion, guarantees not honored, and office staff refusing to engage with complaints. This consistency across unrelated reviewers increases the credibility of these negative accounts.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Several credible negative reviews describe being charged without upfront quotes, parts marked up significantly above retail, and hourly rates never disclosed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2013-04-16, 1-star) references a different listing address and contains no substantive content. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring and credible negative patterns around billing transparency, guarantee enforcement, and project follow-through alongside the genuine praise for responsiveness and technician skill.

The majority of recent reviews (2025) for Wizard Plumbing are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians, which drives the professionalism score upward. However, the dataset is a mixed-entity set containing reviews for both Wizard Plumbing and Bennett Plumbing, with Bennett reviews spanning 2003–2023 and including several serious complaints about overcharging, abandoned work, poor workmanship, and unresponsiveness. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers across both entities flagged high or non-transparent costs, and one reviewer described a bait-and-switch from a $60 promotional price toward an $8,000 estimate. Project completion is significantly dragged down by credible accounts of incomplete work, recurring clogs after service, a technician who left a job site without finishing, and a plumber who caused damage requiring a second contractor to repair. Experience scores moderately well due to many specific mentions of knowledgeable technicians, but is tempered by documented cases of misdiagnosis and failed repairs.

• MIXED ENTITY WARNING: This review set appears to contain reviews for two distinct businesses — Wizard Plumbing and Drain (recent reviews, 2025) and Bennett Plumbing (older reviews, 2003–2023). These should not be scored together as a single contractor profile. The WW Score reflects the blended dataset but may not accurately represent either business individually.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of Wizard Plumbing reviews are from 2025 and are overwhelmingly positive. Bennett Plumbing reviews span 2003–2023 and contain most of the negative feedback. Older reviews (pre-2024) should be weighted less, but the negative signals they carry are substantive and cannot be ignored.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — WIZARD PLUMBING: Several April 10, 2025 reviews reference the same technician (Jonathan) for tankless water heater installations with nearly identical structure, phrasing, and outcomes posted on the same date. This clustering is suspicious and may indicate review manipulation. Confidence in the Wizard Plumbing subset is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURES DOCUMENTED: One review describes a technician leaving mid-job without fixing leaks and the owner refusing to send another plumber. Another describes a clog recurring within two weeks, three failed reschedules, an abandoned camera inspection promise, and a multi-thousand dollar upsell that a second plumber resolved for $500. These are credible, detailed accounts that materially lower the project completion score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ACROSS BOTH ENTITIES: Multiple reviewers noted prices as high or pricy. One reviewer was charged $300 for a diagnosis without being told the rate upfront. Another was overcharged by $500 relative to the original quote. One reviewer explicitly said they would negotiate on price. These are consistent signals of pricing transparency issues.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE — BENNETT: One review describes plumbing work that failed years later at significant cost. Another describes a technician who caused damage that required a second plumber to fix. A third describes toilets not resealed or caulked after wax ring replacement, with the original leak still present.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-limited reliability due to the mixing of two distinct business entities across a 20-year date range, a suspicious clustering of same-day reviews for Wizard Plumbing that may indicate review manipulation, and a meaningful number of detailed negative reviews describing incomplete work, pricing issues, and workmanship failures that substantively offset the volume of generic positive feedback.

Premier/First Choice Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 58 reviews. Pricing is generally viewed favorably at 81.0, with customers noting fair and reasonable rates, though some discrepancies between quotes and final bills were noted. Project completion scores lower at 72.0 due to significant quality control issues documented in multiple detailed complaints involving incomplete work, poor communication about scope, uncapped pipes causing water damage, loose fixtures, and unresolved clogs. Experience ratings of 78.5 reflect mixed technical competency—many reviews praise skill and problem-solving, but several detail failures in workmanship, lack of inspection, and inability to complete jobs properly on first attempt.

• CRITICAL: One extremely detailed negative review (dated 2024-06-09) documents systematic failures across multiple dimensions: uncapped drain pipes causing kitchen flooding, loose shower fixtures, partially clogged drains with water leakage, poor communication about scope of work, and inability to handle heavy equipment. This review is highly specific and credible, not generic.
• Multiple reviews mention communication failures: poor notification about invasive work (wall cutting), disconnected phone calls during quotes, manager avoiding refund calls, and lack of transparency about work scope.
• Quality control concerns: Several reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks or additional plumber visits (e.g., toilet not filling properly days after install, clogged drain not actually fixed by previous plumber).
• Inconsistency in service quality: Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising specific technicians and 1-star reviews from same time period documenting poor work. This suggests highly variable performance depending on which technician is assigned.
• Several reviews appear to be for 'First Choice Plumbing' mixed with 'Premier Plumbing'—these may be different companies or locations, creating potential data contamination.
• One review (dated 2024-03-25) praises 'First Choice Plumbing' and 'Robbie' but appears to be for a different company entirely based on context.
• Multiple empty or minimal reviews ('unknown', '.') reduce data quality but do not appear to be fake—likely system artifacts.
• Recency bias: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2024 (recent), while many generic 5-star reviews are from 2014-2015, suggesting possible quality decline over time or increased scrutiny in recent reviews.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and responsiveness, the presence of multiple detailed, credible complaints about project completion failures—particularly the comprehensive 2024 remodel disaster—indicates real quality control issues that offset positive reviews. The score reflects a company with friendly, punctual staff but inconsistent workmanship and follow-through. Customers should verify specific technician assignments and obtain detailed written scope agreements before hiring.