Find Nearby Plumbers In Billings, Montana

Precision Plumbing & Heating earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and technical competence on complex systems like tankless water heaters and boilers. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — roughly 12 to 14 out of 125 — raises legitimate concerns across all dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, undisclosed trip fees, camera fees, and bills significantly exceeding estimates, pulling the score down considerably from what the majority of positive reviews would otherwise suggest. Project completion also carries a notable penalty due to several credible accounts of incomplete or substandard work, a no-show appointment, a multi-day job that dragged on incorrectly, and at least one instance where the company refused to return to address a warranty issue. The experience dimension is solid overall but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing technicians who lacked knowledge for specific jobs or performed work that failed inspection.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating), including 6 five-star and 1 four-star blank entries — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• 3 reviews are labeled 'unknown' with no text content and were excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews (2024-09-12 and 2024-08-13) appear to be near-identical duplicates: 'We love Precision Plumbing and have been using them for years! Mark, Trish, Brandon, and the whole team are excellent. They are responsive, reliable, and reasonable. Never an upsell, always quality work. Highly recommended!' — possible duplicate submission or fake review; treated as a single data point.
• A significant number of reviews (approximately 40+) are dated prior to 2022, meaning they are more than 3 years old. The business may have changed ownership, staff, or service quality over time. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more heavily weighted.
• Negative reviews show a recurring pattern of billing disputes, unexpected charges, and poor responsiveness to complaints — this is a consistent theme across multiple independent reviewers spanning different years, lending credibility to these concerns.
• One negative review (2023-09-26) describes a detailed and specific billing and service dispute with Rinnai warranty work, corroborated by a similar complaint (2023-09-25) from a different reviewer in the same time period — this pattern warrants attention.
• Some reviews reference different geographic locations (Carson City, Reno, Sparks) suggesting this aggregated review set may span multiple franchise or affiliated locations, which could affect score reliability for any single location.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the presence of credible negative reviews describing billing disputes, incomplete work, and no-shows — combined with possible geographic mixing of locations and a significant portion of reviews older than 3 years — means prospective customers should treat this score as a moderate-confidence indicator and carefully review recent negative feedback before hiring.

This aggregated review set covers multiple businesses operating under the 'American Plumbing' name across different regions, which significantly complicates scoring. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsive technicians, professional conduct, and quality workmanship — with many named employees (Seth, Josh, Matt, Charlie, Felix, Luis, Zeke, and others) receiving repeated commendation. However, a substantial minority of negative reviews — roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including rude staff, no-shows, billing disputes, price gouging, incomplete work, and failed inspections, which meaningfully drag down all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about bait-and-switch quotes, unexplained charges, and prices significantly above competitors, though many other reviewers found pricing fair or even below-market. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is penalized by recurring complaints about jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and work failing inspection.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'American Plumbing' name across different U.S. regions (California, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, etc.). Scores reflect an aggregate that may not represent any single business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER DETECTED: A cluster of 1-star reviews dated 2022-06-07 with no review text (approximately 8-10 blank 1-star reviews) and several with near-identical short phrases ('Unprofessional', 'Very unprofessional', 'Very unprofessional and disrespectful') posted on the same date strongly suggests a coordinated negative review attack. These were noted but their impact was moderated given the pattern.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 25-30 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2006 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily weighted and show a predominantly positive trend, though the detailed negative review from June 2025 regarding permit failures and unprofessional conduct is significant.
• REPEATED REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Matt and Richard of American Plumbing Laguna Beach appears to be posted twice with slightly different dates (2025-04-10 and 2025-04-07). Only counted once.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple negative pricing reviews include specific dollar amounts, named employees, and detailed circumstances, lending them high credibility. These are not generic complaints and meaningfully reduce the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe missed appointments without notification, which is a recurring operational pattern that reduces the professionalism and project completion scores.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a guide to any single business is LIMITED because the reviews demonstrably cover multiple distinct companies sharing the 'American Plumbing' name; prospective customers should seek reviews specific to their local branch before making a hiring decision.

Bob's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews spanning many years, with recurring praise for punctuality, professionalism, and technical skill. However, several credible negative reviews meaningfully drag down the score: one customer was charged $130 for an incomplete diagnosis that a $12 part ultimately resolved, another received no response across multiple contact attempts, and a long-term customer reported a pattern of Bob sending unqualified substitutes whose work had to be redone. A separate reviewer documented a failure to fix a reported leak and no offer of compensation. Pricing is generally described as reasonable or fair, but at least two reviewers flagged it as expensive or not great, and the $130 half-hour visit with a missed diagnosis is a notable concern. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to documented instances of incomplete work, ignored callbacks, and quality degradation when Bob stopped doing the work himself.

• 4 reviews contain only 'unknown' or 'Routine' as text with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several reviews are extremely old (2006–2012) and may not reflect current service quality. The majority of detailed reviews are from 2017 or earlier, with only a handful from 2019–2023.
• The most recent reviews (2023) are both negative, which is a recency flag suggesting possible quality decline.
• Some older 5-star reviews use all-caps formatting and generic praise with no specifics (e.g., 'THEY ARE VERY GOOD'), which may indicate lower authenticity — confidence slightly reduced for those data points.
• A long-term customer (2010 review) explicitly noted Bob stopped doing the work himself and sent unqualified substitutes, with at least one job requiring a redo — this is a significant quality-control flag.
• The 2008 negative review documents a failure to complete called-for work and no remediation offered, corroborating the project completion concerns raised in more recent reviews.

This WW Score is based on 36 reviews with usable data spanning 2006–2023, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume, but the heavy skew toward older reviews and a pattern of recent negative experiences means the score should be treated as a historical average rather than a reliable indicator of current service quality.

The contractor demonstrates strong technical skill and experience (85/100), with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship and problem-solving ability. Project completion is solid (82/100), though one roof leak incident and a fixture that required follow-up work slightly temper this score. Pricing is fair (80/100) with transparent hourly rates and reasonable estimates. Professionalism is the weakest dimension (72/100), with one significant negative review detailing unprofessional behavior (frequent breaks, arriving unprepared, causing damage), though most other reviews praise punctuality and courtesy. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects a generally reliable contractor with notable strengths in experience but some inconsistency in service delivery.

• Significant recency bias: 7 of 10 reviews are from 2006–2014; only 1 recent review from 2023. Current performance may differ materially from historical data.
• One strongly negative review (2006-07-31, rating 1.0) describes unprofessional behavior, property damage, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. This is a concrete data point, not absence of complaint.
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with no text (2016 and 2015) cannot be analyzed and are excluded from scoring.
• The 2023 review mentions price seemed 'a little steep' for a minor job, suggesting potential pricing concerns for smaller projects.
• Roof leak incident (2008) indicates occasional quality issues, though contractor did follow up willingly.

This score should be treated with caution due to heavy reliance on reviews older than 10 years; only one recent review provides current performance data. The contractor shows genuine strengths in experience and technical skill, but the professionalism dimension is undermined by documented unprofessional conduct and property damage in one review, and overall consistency cannot be confidently assessed from this dataset.

Sewer Pro demonstrates strong professionalism and fair pricing across multiple reviews, with customers praising punctuality, honesty, and transparent quoting. However, a critical 1-star review from 2019 reveals a serious quality control failure where damage to plumbing was concealed rather than disclosed, significantly undermining confidence in project completion and workmanship. The positive reviews are older (2017, 2022) or recent (2024), but the damage concealment incident raises concerns about follow-through and accountability that cannot be overlooked despite generally favorable feedback.

• CRITICAL: One review (2019) documents a major quality failure where the plumber damaged a pipe and concealed it with tape without informing the customer, leading to water leaks discovered later. This is a serious breach of professional responsibility.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of the three positive reviews are significantly dated (2017, 2022). Only one recent positive review from 2024 is available. The 2019 negative review is older but documents a systemic issue (concealment of damage).
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Confidence in overall score is limited by low review volume.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and the presence of a serious quality/integrity issue documented in the 2019 review that directly contradicts the positive professionalism ratings. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects strong pricing and communication but is significantly penalized by documented failure in project completion and accountability.

Cotter Plumbing receives strong praise across multiple reviews for responsiveness, same-day or rapid arrival, and friendly staff, which drives a solid professionalism score. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with one reviewer noting a senior discount applied unprompted and costs significantly below a competitor, though one negative review cited a bid that was double the competition. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: two negative reviews describe incomplete or improperly executed work, failure to follow up with bids, and a recurrence of the original problem — one reviewer ultimately hired a competitor after being ignored. Experience is mixed, with several reviews praising technical competence and clear explanations, but one review explicitly describing an undertrained technician who failed to clear a line properly. The negative reviews, while a minority, describe serious service failures that meaningfully pull down the completion and experience scores.

• Two reviews (2017 and 2023) describe significant service failures including abandoned follow-up, no-bid responses, recurring blockages, and undertrained staff — these are substantive complaints that carry real weight.
• Several positive reviews are older than 5 years (2012, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020) and may not reflect current service quality. Recency weighting applied — more recent reviews (2022–2023) include both a strong positive and a strong negative.
• The 2023 negative review (1-star) is the most recent detailed review and describes a pattern of poor follow-through and pricing that was double a competitor — this is given elevated weight due to recency.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and sentiment, and include specific names and scenarios, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning over a decade, with moderate overall confidence; the score is reasonably reliable for general guidance but should be interpreted cautiously given the meaningful service failures described in recent negative reviews and the age of many positive reviews.