Find Nearby Plumbers In Bozeman, Montana

Campbell's Plumbing and Heating earns strong marks across most dimensions, with professionalism and experience being the most frequently praised attributes — technicians like Chris, Adriana, Aiden, DJ, and John are repeatedly cited for punctuality, clear communication, and technical competence. Project completion is generally solid but is meaningfully dragged down by three distinct negative reviews describing a botched A/C install with water damage and poor follow-through, a multi-instance no-show and late-arrival pattern, and a job where work was performed without providing an estimate as promised. Pricing is mostly viewed favorably, with several reviewers noting fair or reasonable costs, but one reviewer explicitly complained about receiving an unexpectedly high bill with no prior estimate, which tempers the score. The overall picture is of a capable and generally professional company with a meaningful but minority track record of serious service failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• 17 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use placeholder text such as 'unknown', 'See above', or a single period. These were treated as no usable data.
• A large portion of reviews (roughly 30+) are more than 2 years old, and many are from 2012–2016. Recency weighting was applied; older reviews were given reduced influence on scores.
• The review corpus spans over a decade (2010–2025), meaning the company's current service quality may differ significantly from historical performance reflected in older reviews.
• Three substantive negative reviews (1-star) describe serious failures: an A/C install that caused water damage with disputed responsibility and poor owner communication (2016), repeated no-shows and unanswered calls (2015), and work performed without providing a promised estimate followed by an inflated bill (2025). These are specific, credible, and detailed — not generic complaints.
• The majority of positive reviews are 5-star with no negative qualifiers, which is a mild flag, but most contain specific names, job details, and situational context, reducing the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• The 2025 no-estimate billing complaint is recent and specific, and represents a transparency/pricing integrity concern that prospective customers should note.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with sufficient textual evidence across all four dimensions to produce a moderately reliable score; however, the significant age spread of reviews and three credible, detailed negative accounts — including one from 2025 — mean the score should be treated as a reasonable but imperfect signal, and prospective customers are advised to confirm current service standards directly before hiring.

Badger Plumbing earns strong marks across most dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, reasonable pricing, and technical skill across dozens of reviews spanning nearly a decade. The majority of customers highlight prompt callbacks, friendly demeanor, and fair rates, which anchor the professionalism and pricing scores. However, two serious negative reviews — one involving an unreturned deposit and abandoned work, and another involving a repair that failed within six months with no warranty follow-through — meaningfully drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. A third mixed review flags the use of an inexperienced technician billed at full rate without disclosure, further tempering the experience score. These are not minor complaints and represent genuine reliability risks that prevent higher scores despite the volume of positive feedback.

• SERIOUS FLAG — Project Abandonment: One reviewer (2019-05-30) reports that Nick accepted a 10% deposit for a sewer line job, never returned to complete the work, never returned the deposit, and required legal action. This is a significant trust and completion concern.
• SERIOUS FLAG — Warranty Non-Compliance: One reviewer (2023-01-24) reports that a toilet repair assembly failed within 6 months and Badger refused to honor the work without charging a new service call fee, indicating inconsistent warranty/callback policy.
• MODERATE FLAG — Ghost Communication: One reviewer (2019-11-30) reports that Nick promised to inspect a water heater issue and then went completely silent despite repeated texts and calls. This is a pattern concern when combined with the deposit abandonment review.
• MODERATE FLAG — Inexperienced Technician Billed at Full Rate: One reviewer (2015-10-21) describes being sent an apparent rookie who took far longer than expected and lacked basic knowledge, while being charged a full hourly rate with no prior disclosure.
• NOTE — Review Span: Reviews range from 2014 to 2024. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (cutoff: mid-2023). Only 2 reviews fall within the most recent 12-month window, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• NOTE — Possible Inconsistency in Service Quality: Multiple technicians are mentioned (Nick, Mike, Tom). Negative reviews cluster around Nick specifically, while Mike and Tom receive predominantly positive feedback. This may indicate uneven quality across team members rather than a uniform service standard.
• NOTE — No suspected fake reviews detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, named individuals, and include both positive and negative experiences, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a solid volume of 33 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to three substantive negative reviews involving abandoned work, a retained deposit, and a failed warranty response — issues that represent material risks beyond what the numerical score alone conveys.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Reliable Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and successful job completions — particularly for water heater replacements, leak repairs, and emergency calls. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 20–22 reviews) describe serious concerns including incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, warranty denials after poor workmanship, rude owner interactions, and pricing disputes involving non-itemized invoices and unexpected charges. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing overquoting, lack of transparency, and charges inconsistent with initial quotes. Project completion is also dragged down by several credible accounts of work left unfinished, recurring leaks after paid repairs, and technicians who lacked the skill to complete assigned jobs. The overall score reflects a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and many capable technicians, offset by a persistent pattern of quality control and owner-level customer service failures.

• Approximately 35 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count and cannot be used as evidence of quality.
• Several reviews appear to originate from different geographic markets (Charlotte NC, Baton Rouge LA, El Paso TX) suggesting this may be a shared business name across unrelated companies — scores may reflect mixed entities rather than a single contractor.
• A recurring pattern of negative reviews specifically names the owner 'Raymond' or 'Ramon' as rude, condescending, or dishonest in pricing disputes — this is a consistent and credible signal across multiple independent reviewers spanning 2013–2025.
• Multiple reviews describe warranty denials after failed repairs, with the company refusing callbacks or not answering phones — this is a serious project completion red flag.
• Pricing complaints include: non-itemized receipts, charges inconsistent with initial quotes, and alleged price gouging on water heater installations — these are consistent across multiple reviewers and time periods.
• Some older reviews (2005–2016) may not reflect current business practices and were given reduced weight in scoring; the majority of scoring weight was placed on reviews from 2020 onward.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though the volume of brief generic 5-star reviews (e.g. 'Professional job. Well done', 'Great service as always') with no specifics warrants mild caution — these were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset (155 total, ~120 with usable content) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and recurring negative patterns around pricing transparency, warranty honoring, and owner conduct that meaningfully offset the many positive technician-level experiences.

B&B Plumbing has a large and long-running review history that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviewers praise punctuality, courteous technicians, and clean work habits — but a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe rude staff, unresponsive management, and broken promises, which prevents a higher score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple detailed negative reviews describe hidden fees (vehicle charges, credit card surcharges, travel fees), charges for unproductive diagnostic time, and quotes significantly higher than competitors, while positive reviewers do cite fair pricing — the tension between these camps pulls the score down substantially. Project completion is similarly split: many reviewers report smooth, timely, complete jobs, but several credible negative reviews describe abandoned work, unkept guarantees, unresolved issues after multiple visits, and a notable case where the owner promised completion then went on vacation leaving the job unfinished. Experience scores moderately — most technicians are praised as knowledgeable, especially with Kohler products, but at least two detailed negative reviews describe a technician who lacked basic product knowledge and another whose work was found not to be up to code, which meaningfully reduces confidence in consistent skill levels.

• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence inflates the apparent star average without contributing meaningful data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated '2024-06-09', '2023-06-10', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', and similar round dates with no review text are suspicious. Batches of blank 5-star reviews on the same date are a known pattern of review padding and should be treated with skepticism.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The RHEEM tankless water heater review by what appears to be the same customer was submitted twice (2021-06-10 and 2021-03-23) with nearly identical text. Similarly, the 'So happy with the work done by B & B plumbing' concrete pipe review appears twice (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-20). Duplicate reviews may indicate platform cross-posting or manipulation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent substantive negative reviews (2024-10-10 and 2024-09-12) are within the past 12 months and describe serious issues — hidden fees charged to a disabled person and complete non-responsiveness after initial contact. These recent negatives were weighted more heavily.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: Multiple negative reviews across different years describe the owner or management becoming unreachable after problems arose (2021-01-07, 2021-10-06, 2013-05-27). This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2013-05-27) describes a technician making sexual advances toward and physically touching a customer's mother. The company's follow-up response was also described as inadequate. While this is an older review, it is a serious allegation.
• GUARANTEE VIOLATION: At least one review (2014-06-20) explicitly describes B&B refusing to honor their stated one-year workmanship guarantee, requiring payment for a return visit on the same issue within the warranty period.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should note that the score reflects a genuinely divided customer base — roughly 20-25% of substantive reviews describe serious problems with pricing transparency, follow-through, and management accountability, and these concerns appear consistently across multiple years including recent reviews.

Peter and the Bozeman Handyman team receive consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with every reviewer noting responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and courteous attitude. Project completion is equally well-supported, with multiple reviewers describing a wide variety of jobs completed thoroughly, on time, and with follow-through — including one instance where Peter proactively sourced a specialist when a job exceeded his scope. Experience and workmanship quality are affirmed across diverse project types including plumbing, carpentry, lighting, and door installation. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews as reasonable or fair, supporting a solid but moderately confident pricing score.

• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution. However, reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied writing styles, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review recency is a concern: 5 of 7 reviews are older than 12 months, with 4 reviews dating back to 2017–2019. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The overall score should be interpreted with awareness that recent performance data is limited.
• Small sample size of 7 reviews limits statistical reliability. Scores are directionally trustworthy but should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

This WW Score is directionally reliable given the specificity and variety of the reviews, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size, all-5-star rating pattern, and the fact that the majority of reviews are more than 12 months old.