Find Nearby Plumbers In Billings, Montana

Atlas Plumbing & Heating has a mixed but generally positive record across the reviews analyzed. Professionalism scores were boosted by strong praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior in the two most recent and detailed reviews (2024), but significantly dragged down by a 2021 complaint about being unreachable and a 2015 incident where an appointment was cancelled without notification — a serious lapse in customer communication. Project completion is similarly mixed: most reviewers describe work being finished well, but the cancelled appointment with no follow-through and the 2021 contact failure introduce meaningful doubt. Pricing and experience are rated positively across the reviews that mention them, with one reviewer noting a fair policy of not charging for repeat issues. However, the majority of reviews are very old (pre-2020), and only two reviews from the past 12 months provide reliable, current data.

• RECENCY WARNING: Six of eight reviews are from 2015 or earlier, with one from 2021 and only two from the past 12 months (2024). The business's current operational quality cannot be reliably inferred from the older reviews.
• CONTACT/AVAILABILITY CONCERN: A 2021 reviewer reported being unable to reach the business by phone and questioned whether it was still operating. This is a significant reliability flag.
• APPOINTMENT CANCELLATION: A 2015 review describes a cancelled appointment with no notification and no explanation, indicating a past failure in customer communication and follow-through.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Two reviews ('Great! Great guy!' and the all-caps 2005 review) contain no specific detail and contribute minimal usable data. These were excluded from dimension scoring due to lack of actionable content.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total, with only 2 recent ones. The WW Score should be treated with caution and is not statistically robust.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample, a majority of reviews being over 8 years old, documented concerns about business reachability, and only two reviews from the past 12 months providing current evidence of service quality.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence from a large volume of reviewers, with many customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and explain their work clearly. However, pricing is the single most dominant negative theme across thousands of reviews, with an extraordinary number of customers reporting charges that are two to five times higher than competing plumbers for identical work — a pattern so consistent and widespread it significantly drags down the overall score. Project completion is mixed: while most jobs are finished correctly, a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty disputes, no-shows, and situations where problems were not resolved on the first visit. Experience scores are moderate-to-good, with many technicians demonstrating genuine expertise, but offset by recurring reports of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and technicians who appeared to lack knowledge for the specific job at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN — Extreme and consistent overpricing is the single most reported issue across this review set, spanning thousands of individual reviews across multiple years and franchise locations. Customers routinely report paying 2x–5x the market rate for standard jobs. This is not isolated; it appears to be a systemic franchise pricing model.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — A very large number of reviews describe aggressive or misleading upselling tactics, including recommending unnecessary full replacements instead of repairs, inflated estimates that drop significantly when the customer pushes back, and high-pressure sales pitches for service contracts.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY — Reviews span many different franchise locations operating under the Benjamin Franklin Plumbing brand. Quality, pricing, and professionalism vary significantly by location, making aggregate scores less reliable for any single location.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — A significant portion of reviews (estimated 15–20%) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These blank 5-star reviews are a known pattern associated with review padding. Confidence in the positive score distribution is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED — Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates (identical text, same or adjacent dates), suggesting possible review manipulation or system errors in the data set.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES — Dozens of reviews describe warranty disputes, failure to honor service agreements, no-call no-shows on scheduled return visits, and management that was unresponsive to complaints — indicating systemic customer service failures beyond individual technician performance.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION — Multiple reviews explicitly describe situations where elderly or vulnerable customers were quoted prices far above market rate, with some reviewers alleging deliberate targeting of people who lacked knowledge to push back.
• RECENCY NOTE — Reviews span from approximately 2004 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same pricing complaints and mixed service quality as older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution because it aggregates multiple franchise locations under one brand, a significant volume of blank 5-star reviews artificially inflates the raw rating, and the pricing dimension — which is overwhelmingly negative — is the most reliable and consistent signal in the entire dataset.

Acorn Plumbing presents a mixed picture across its review history. Several positive reviews highlight polite, on-time technicians who completed complex multi-scope projects competently, including boiler installations, remodels, and fixture replacements. However, two detailed negative reviews — one from 2022 and one from 2014 — describe serious failures in workmanship (improper flange installation, faulty valve), poor warranty follow-through, and significant communication breakdowns including being ghosted and unreturned calls. These negative reviews are specific, credible, and describe systemic issues with accountability rather than isolated incidents. The positive reviews, while numerous, are older on average and some lack specific detail, which tempers confidence in the higher scores.

• Two highly detailed negative reviews describe recurring patterns of poor warranty handling and communication failures, which are credible and specific — these significantly weigh down professionalism and project completion scores.
• The 2022 negative review describes a technician no-showing after confirming an appointment and the company failing to return calls — a serious professionalism concern.
• The 2014 negative review describes a 22-year customer being billed for a faulty part under warranty, with the owner repeatedly unavailable and the receptionist being rude — indicating possible systemic management issues.
• Most positive reviews are from 2018 or earlier (5 of 7 reviews predate 2022), meaning recent performance data is limited to only two reviews — one strongly positive (2024) and one strongly negative (2022).
• The 2024 positive review mentions a website URL, which is slightly atypical and could indicate a promotional or incentivized review, though it does include specific technician names (Zach and Matt) which adds some credibility.
• Recency concern: Only 2 of 7 reviews are from the past 3 years. The overall score should be interpreted cautiously given the limited recent data.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review pool is small (7 reviews), spans a decade of activity with limited recent data, and includes two credible, detailed negative reviews that reveal recurring issues with warranty accountability and communication that cannot be dismissed.

Williams Plumbing shows strong technical competence and professionalism in individual service calls, with many recent reviews (2025) praising technician expertise, friendliness, and problem-solving ability. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing complaints spanning multiple years, with customers reporting flat-rate charges perceived as 2-3x market rates, lack of transparent quotes, and poor communication around costs. Project completion issues appear in older reviews (2019-2023) involving no-shows, incomplete work, and follow-up failures, though recent reviews show improvement. The stark contrast between glowing recent reviews and damaging older complaints suggests either genuine operational changes or potential review manipulation.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 40 of 75 reviews are from 2025 (all 5-star, highly positive, similar phrasing patterns like 'professional,' 'thorough,' 'friendly'). This concentration of recent perfect reviews is atypical and may indicate fake or incentivized reviews.
• PRICING CRISIS: 18 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Complaints span 2010-2023 with consistent themes: flat-rate pricing perceived as 100-300% markup, lack of transparent quotes, $200+ diagnostic fees, and charges of $1000-$2000+ for routine work. This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2019-2023) document no-shows, incomplete work, misdiagnosis, and failure to return calls or honor callbacks. One customer paid $6000+ across three visits with no resolution.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Several reviews cite unresponsive office staff, no returned calls, inability to provide pricing information, and delayed estimates.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: Reviews from 2024-2025 are overwhelmingly positive (5-star); reviews from 2019-2023 are overwhelmingly negative (1-star). This temporal split suggests either dramatic operational change or review authenticity concerns.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Same company receives praise for emergency response and technical skill alongside complaints of incompetence and overcharging, suggesting highly variable technician performance or customer experience.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews show strong professionalism and technical skill, the overwhelming concentration of perfect 5-star reviews in 2025 combined with a stark historical pattern of pricing and project completion failures raises serious questions about review authenticity. The pricing dimension (42.0) is well-supported by consistent, detailed complaints across multiple years and should be weighted heavily in decision-making. Customers should independently verify current pricing practices and request detailed written quotes before engaging this company.

Rimrock Plumbing presents a mixed picture across its review history. On professionalism, there are strong positive signals from multiple reviewers praising punctuality, politeness, and communication, but these are significantly offset by two explicit complaints about rudeness and complete failure to return calls or communicate after service. Pricing received the most damaging single review — a customer reporting being charged over $1,000 above the going rate with no explanation offered — though one positive review noted being billed less than quoted, creating a wide and unresolved spread. Project completion is similarly split: one reviewer praised timely, complete work, while another described an apprentice completing a toilet installation unsupervised that resulted in a defect the company then refused to address. Experience scores moderately, with one owner specifically praised as highly knowledgeable, but the unsupervised apprentice incident and the unresolved running toilet undercut confidence in consistent workmanship quality.

• Three reviews from 2017-10-02 and 2017-12-19 are extremely vague and generic ('They provided excellent service', 'I would recommend them.') with no specific details — these may be low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews and were given minimal weight.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current analysis date; only the 2022 and 2021 reviews are relatively recent. The majority of data is from 2017–2020, reducing reliability for assessing current performance.
• The 2022 review describes a serious unresolved billing dispute and complete communication breakdown — this is the most recent data point and was weighted heavily as a recency signal.
• The 2020 negative review describes an apprentice performing work without licensed plumber supervision and a refusal to honor a callback — a potential quality control and liability concern.
• Total review count is low (8 reviews), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the small review pool, predominance of older reviews, presence of generic low-detail reviews, and two substantive negative reviews describing billing disputes and refusal to honor callbacks introduce significant uncertainty about the contractor's current and consistent performance.

Archie's Plumbing presents a mixed picture across reviews. Positive reviews highlight Skip as punctual, responsive, professional, and skilled at diagnosing complex issues like corroded pipe leaks and various installations. However, two negative reviews — one citing rudeness and poor communication, and another detailing a $520 charge for a repair the reviewer felt was excessive and poorly handled — meaningfully drag down both the professionalism and pricing dimensions. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with explicit complaints about overcharging appearing in two separate reviews and one reviewer describing the cost as 'a rip off.' Project completion is moderately positive overall but is tempered by the callback incident where a nearby leak was missed on the initial visit. The overall score reflects genuine mixed performance rather than a clear pattern of excellence.

• Two of the five reviews are older than 3 years (2016 and 2020), and one positive review is from 2022. Only one review falls within the past 12 months (November 2023). Recency weighting is limited.
• The three 5-star reviews use broadly positive language but do include specific details (leak types, job types, Sunday emergency call), reducing fake review concern. However, the small sample size limits reliability.
• The 1-star review from 2020 raises a specific concern: a technician acknowledged seeing a potential secondary issue but did not proactively address it, suggesting a possible upsell or negligence pattern. This is a notable red flag.
• The 2-star review from 2016 is very brief and lacks detail, making it difficult to fully weight, but the explicit mention of rudeness and overpricing is consistent with the 1-star review's pricing complaint.
• With only 5 total reviews spanning 7 years, this score should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE overall. The WW Score cannot be considered stable or representative of current consistent performance.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 7 years and should be treated with caution — the score reflects real signals of mixed performance but cannot be considered a reliable representation of the contractor's current quality without a larger and more recent review sample.