Find Nearby Plumbers In Billings, Montana

This contractor demonstrates consistently strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 7 of 7 usable reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is reliable, with multiple reviews confirming same-day or next-day service, on-time delivery, and thorough follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is fair and transparent, with customers noting reasonable rates, inclusive estimates, and honest cost-saving advice. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in reviews highlighting efficient work, quality outcomes, and diagnostic expertise. The single 1-star review from 2012 lacks detail and is treated as an outlier given the overwhelming positive pattern.

• All reviews except one are 5-star ratings (7 of 8), which could suggest selection bias or review filtering, though the detailed nature of positive reviews and presence of one 1-star outlier mitigates fake review concerns.
• Review dates are significantly dated: most reviews are from 2007–2011, with only one from 2012. No reviews from the past 12 months. This limits ability to assess current service quality and reliability.
• The 1-star review from 2012-06-14 contains no text explanation ('See above'), making it impossible to assess what went wrong. This creates uncertainty about whether a serious service failure occurred.

This WW Score of 89.3 is based on solid evidence across all dimensions with HIGH confidence, but its reliability is significantly limited by the age of the review data (13+ years old). Current service quality cannot be verified from these reviews alone; recent customer feedback is essential before making a hiring decision.

Carlson Plumbing earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and detailed review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently praised attribute, with dozens of reviewers explicitly citing punctuality, courtesy, cleanliness, and communication — including technicians sending arrival photos and proactively updating customers. Pricing receives consistently positive mentions, with multiple reviewers noting Carlson came in significantly cheaper than competitors and never attempted to upsell unnecessary services. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing complex multi-day jobs, emergency calls, and repeat use — all completed satisfactorily — though three negative reviews (1–2 stars) cite a no-show, bad attitude, and overpricing, which modestly temper this dimension. Experience is strongly evidenced by detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics, creative problem-solving, and technically demanding repairs across a wide variety of plumbing scenarios.

• THREE NEGATIVE REVIEWS DETECTED: One 1-star review (2016) describes a no-show after confirmed appointment with no callback. One 1-star review (2019) describes chronic unreliability, failure to return calls, and failure to return a customer's part over several months — attributed to 'Barry.' One 2-star review (2024) describes unprofessional behavior, a bad attitude from a technician, and a quote of $400 for a 30-minute job. One 2-star review (2024) states 'bad service and rates through the roof.' These are meaningful signals and have been factored into scoring.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR THIN REVIEW PATTERN: At least 7 reviews contain no text at all (rating only), and several others contain only 1–3 generic words ('Good company,' 'Great job,' 'Great Experience!'). These reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 80+) are from 2020 onward, with a strong cluster in 2024–2025. Older reviews (2007–2019) reference different named technicians (Barry, Brandon) and may reflect a different operational era of the business. Recent reviews are predominantly positive and were weighted more heavily.
• TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Reviews reference many different technicians (Mason, Kyle, Griffin, Ryan, Brandon, Barry, Gilbert, Phil, Ricardo, Ray). Quality appears consistently high across most technicians, but the two most negative reviews reference specific interactions suggesting isolated but real service failures.
• DUAL GEOGRAPHY SIGNAL: Some reviews reference Orange County / Fountain Valley (CA) while others reference Hollister / South County (CA), suggesting either multiple service areas or a business that relocated. This does not affect scoring but may affect relevance depending on the customer's location.

This WW Score is based on 125 reviews with a high volume of detailed, specific, and independently worded accounts across a wide time range, yielding HIGH confidence across all four dimensions — however, the presence of three credible negative reviews and several content-free reviews means the score should be treated as a strong but not unconditional endorsement.

Freedom Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the strongest area (85.2), with extensive praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians like Rob, Noah, and Trent. Project completion scores well (81.8) with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction, though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. Pricing is competitive (79.5), with customers frequently citing fair and reasonable rates compared to competitors, though a few complaints about unexpected costs and supply runs exist. Experience is solid (84.3), with customers consistently praising technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. However, the company shows inconsistency in service quality and responsiveness, with several negative reviews citing missed appointments, poor communication, and unresponsive management.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple identical reviews appear in the dataset (e.g., the detailed broken pipe/update review appears twice; several 5-star reviews from 2024-06-09 are duplicated). This inflates mention counts and may artificially elevate scores. Adjusted scoring accounts for this duplication.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (praising specific technicians like Rob, Noah, Trent, Chris, Mike) and negative reviews citing no-shows, unresponsiveness, and poor follow-up. This suggests quality varies significantly by technician and location.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2024-06-09, 2016-11-10, 2016-08-02, 2013-06-20) cite failure to return calls, poor responsiveness, and lack of follow-up. This is a recurring weakness despite overall professionalism scores.
• THIRD-PARTY ANSWERING SERVICE PROBLEM: One detailed 2025-05-10 review explicitly identifies a third-party after-hours answering service as the source of scheduling failures and communication breakdowns, suggesting systemic operational issues.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Several reviews (2022-01-17, 2016-11-29/30, 2013-07-08) cite unexpected charges for supply runs, hourly rate surprises, and perceived overcharging. Some customers felt misled about total costs.
• TECHNICIAN QUALITY VARIANCE: Negative reviews specifically name technicians (Justin, Dennis, Keith) as sources of poor service, while positive reviews praise others (Rob, Noah, Trent, Chris). This indicates hiring/training inconsistency.
• OLDER REVIEWS SHOW MORE COMPLAINTS: Reviews from 2013-2016 contain more detailed complaints about responsiveness and follow-up. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible recent improvements or review selection bias.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: While not all reviews are identical, there is a cluster of highly generic 5-star reviews from 2024-06-09 with minimal detail (e.g., 'Best plumbing company ever!', 'Great service, very professional.', blank reviews). These lack specificity and may be artificially generated. However, the majority of reviews contain sufficient detail to be credible.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable at the HIGH confidence level due to the large sample size (240 reviews) and consistent mention counts across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant operational inconsistencies: the company excels with certain technicians and locations but struggles with communication, responsiveness, and follow-up in other areas. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on which technician is assigned and whether they use the third-party answering service. The score is most trustworthy for assessing technical competence and professionalism during the actual service visit, but less reliable for predicting scheduling reliability and post-service responsiveness.

Hertz Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is evidenced by rapid response times (callback within an hour), politeness, and same-day service delivery. Pricing feedback is consistently positive with customers noting reasonable rates and good value. Project completion is solid with customers reporting work finished promptly and standing behind their work. Technical skill is reflected in quality workmanship such as pipe reorganization and system improvements. However, the analysis is based on only 4 reviews, all with 5-star ratings and all older than 2 years, which limits confidence in the overall score.

• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — consider whether this reflects genuine universal satisfaction or potential selection bias
• All reviews are older than 2 years (oldest from 2016, most recent from 2022) — no recent data available to assess current service quality
• Small sample size (n=4) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more recent reviews before making high-confidence decisions
• Review language is consistently positive and generic in places ('great service', 'highly recommend') but does include specific details (same-day service, pipe reorganization) that suggest authenticity

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews), absence of recent data (all reviews 2+ years old), and lack of any negative feedback, which may not reflect the full current customer experience.

All six reviews explicitly praise professionalism, with multiple reviewers using terms like 'best in class,' 'meticulous,' and 'knowledgeable,' driving a high confidence professionalism score. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with references to fair pricing, competitive estimates, and transparent options, though the limited mention count keeps confidence moderate. Project completion is supported by four reviews describing timely delivery, follow-through on callbacks, and a complimentary one-year inspection, indicating strong follow-through. Experience scores well across five reviews, with specific references to quality workmanship, technical knowledge, and problem-solving in real scenarios such as furnace replacements and electrical work.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though most reviews do include specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• 4 out of 6 reviews are older than 12 months as of a 2024 reference date; 2 reviews are from 2016 and 2017, which are significantly dated and carry reduced weight in scoring.
• The review from 2017 references 'Dave' as an electrician, and the first review references 'Adam' — these may represent different technicians or even different service lines, suggesting some reviews may not reflect a consistent team or current service quality.
• Small sample size of only 6 reviews limits overall reliability. WW Score should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score is directionally positive but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small review sample, the age of several reviews, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback across all six submissions.

Allied Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited positive attribute — the vast majority of reviewers praised courteous, friendly, and timely technicians by name. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers specifically noting that quoted prices were honored without hidden charges; however, a handful of negative reviews cited overpricing or unexpectedly high bills, which tempers the pricing score. Project completion is solid, with many reviews describing jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, but there are notable negative outliers involving incomplete repairs, a no-call no-show, a rescheduled appointment, and at least one instance of work that caused subsequent damage (the sewer line replacement that only covered 20 feet). Experience scores well overall, with reviewers frequently praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe misdiagnosis or substandard workmanship that prevents a higher score. The presence of 10+ negative reviews — including serious complaints about incomplete work, aggressive behavior, and poor customer service — meaningfully reduces scores across all dimensions.

• Seven reviews contain no text at all (marked 'unknown', blank, or just a period) with ratings of 4–5 stars — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A cluster of 14 reviews all share the exact same date of 2024-06-09, which is unusual and may indicate batch-imported or artificially dated reviews. Content varies enough to suggest they are real but the identical date warrants caution.
• One reviewer (2017-09-09) explicitly accused the company of having fake employee reviews, stating 'Guessing most of these reviews must be from employees.' This cannot be confirmed but is noted.
• One review (2019-07-23) appears to be a near-verbatim duplicate of another review (2020-06-10) — same reviewer praising the same technicians with nearly identical language. This duplicate was counted only once per dimension.
• Negative reviews describe serious incidents: an owner allegedly entering a customer's home to intimidate them (2024-09-21), a driver attempting to instigate a physical altercation (2024-06-09), a plumber leaving without turning water back on causing additional damage (2019-05-22), a no-call no-show (2016-06-11), a rescheduled appointment with no notice (2016-01-15), and a sewer repair that only partially addressed the problem leading to a repeat backup (2022-11-25).
• The review corpus spans from 2006 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are positive, which is a favorable recency signal, but the negative reviews are distributed across multiple years suggesting recurring issues rather than isolated incidents.
• One negative review (2014-01-20) describes a detailed and credible account of a leak caused by technician negligence, subsequent property damage, and a dismissive response from the office — this was weighted heavily in the project completion and professionalism scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of credible and detailed negative reviews — including incomplete work, aggressive employee conduct, and poor complaint resolution — means the score should be interpreted as a moderate-confidence representation of a company with strong typical performance but meaningful and recurring service failures.