Find Nearby Plumbers In Bozeman, Montana

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.

Premier Plumbers receives strong praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and affordability in two positive reviews, with one reviewer specifically highlighting weekend availability and another noting accurate, honest pricing and clean workmanship. However, the single 1-star review is a serious drag on the score — it describes a recurring pipe leak following the original job, three separate failures, and a refusal or inability to return for over a month to correct their own work. Project completion is the most heavily weighted dimension and is significantly penalized by this documented failure to follow through on a callback. With only three reviews total, confidence across all dimensions is low and the score should be interpreted with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• The 1-star review (2019) documents a clear project completion failure: pipes leaked three times after the original job and the contractor was unavailable for a month to correct their own work — this is a significant red flag.
• The two positive reviews use somewhat generic praise language ('go above and beyond,' 'premier plumbers') with limited specific detail, though they do include some concrete examples (hot water heater installation, weekend response) which reduces fake review concern.
• Recency note: The 1-star review is from 2019, which is over 4 years before the most recent review. The two positive reviews are from 2022 and 2023. The older negative review is given slightly reduced weight but is still factored in as it describes a serious service failure.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality.

Keller Supply exhibits a deeply polarized customer experience. Professionalism is the primary driver of the low WW Score, with 28 mentions revealing severe and consistent customer service failures: rude staff, dismissive attitudes toward non-contractor customers, refusal to help walk-in customers, and aggressive behavior from specific employees (particularly Mary). Experience scores are strong (78/100), with multiple reviews praising product knowledge and knowledgeable staff like Bobbie. However, project completion issues (48/100) include slow order fulfillment, inventory inaccuracies, poor communication, and unresponsiveness. Pricing is moderately favorable (65/100) with some mentions of competitive prices, though concerns about overcharging and warranty disputes exist. The business appears to prioritize contractor relationships over retail customers, creating a hostile environment for homeowners.

• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM CRISIS: Multiple detailed accounts of rude, dismissive, and aggressive customer service spanning 2008–2021. Employee 'Mary' appears in at least 5 reviews with polarized feedback (praised by some, aggressively rejected others). Pattern suggests inconsistent staff behavior or possible personality conflicts.
• CONTRACTOR-FIRST BIAS: Repeated complaints that non-contractor customers are turned away, told to make appointments, or discouraged from shopping. This is a business model choice but creates hostile retail experience.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite unreturned phone calls, emails, and lack of status updates on orders. One review documents 30+ days of non-communication on warranty claim.
• INVENTORY ACCURACY ISSUES: Customers report being told items are in stock when they are not, requiring 38+ mile drives for nothing.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019–2021 period. More recent reviews (2024) are sparse and generic ('Muy amables', empty 5-star ratings). This may indicate improved service or reduced review volume.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty or single-word 5-star reviews (11 reviews with no text or minimal text, all 5-star ratings from 2019–2023). These provide no actionable data and inflate apparent satisfaction artificially.
• POLARIZED MARY FEEDBACK: Same employee praised as 'exceptional' and 'fantastic' in 2019–2020, but aggressively rejected by multiple customers in 2021. Suggests either staff turnover, burnout, or inconsistent service delivery.
• WARRANTY/BILLING DISPUTE: One detailed account of $922.51 charge for item supposedly under warranty, with only partial refund after escalation. Raises trust concerns.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (51 reviews), the data is heavily skewed by empty/generic 5-star reviews (22% of total) that inflate apparent satisfaction without providing evidence. The professionalism dimension is well-supported by 28 detailed mentions, but most are negative and concentrated in 2019–2021; recent data is sparse. The business model (contractor-focused wholesale) may not align with typical contractor scoring frameworks. Homeowners should expect poor walk-in service; contractors with established accounts may experience different outcomes.

Bob's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged area, with multiple reviews citing yelling, no-shows without notification, failure to communicate pricing upfront, and rude office staff — though a few positive reviews do praise punctuality and courteous technicians. Pricing drew explicit complaints about being twice the cost of competitors and an unexpected $325 bill with no prior communication, dragging that dimension down significantly. Project completion is also concerning, with one reviewer reporting two visits that failed to resolve all issues and a demand for a third trip charge to finish the job, though other reviewers report quick and complete resolutions. Experience scores modestly higher, as most reviewers who commented on the actual work quality found it acceptable or good, with one standout example of a plumber going above and beyond on a water heater repair.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews 4 and 5 are nearly identical in text, rating, and date (2018-10-10). This appears to be the same review submitted twice. Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY WARNING: Five of the eight reviews are from 2018 or earlier, with the most recent positive reviews from 2022 and 2023. The negative reviews are predominantly older, but the pattern of complaints (no-shows, pricing, communication) is serious enough that they cannot be dismissed.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: With only 8 total reviews (7 unique), this dataset is too small to draw highly reliable conclusions. Scores should be treated with caution.
• RATING POLARIZATION: Reviews are heavily polarized — four 5-star and three 1-star reviews with no middle-ground ratings. This pattern can indicate a contractor with inconsistent service quality or selective review solicitation.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small and polarized review set, the presence of a duplicate review, and the fact that the majority of reviews are more than 5 years old — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

Harvey's Plumbing and Heating exhibits a stark performance divide. While technicians demonstrate strong technical skill and workmanship (82/100), the company is severely hampered by systemic professionalism failures across communication, appointment reliability, and responsiveness (28/100). Nine of ten reviews explicitly cite missed appointments, failure to return calls, poor communication, and unprofessional conduct. Project completion is compromised by no-shows and abandonment of customer requests (38/100). Pricing appears fair when services are delivered, but the company's inability to reliably schedule and execute work undermines overall value (35/100). The business appears to have experienced rapid growth that management cannot control, resulting in chronic operational dysfunction despite capable technicians.

• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: 7 of 10 reviews are from 2017-2020 (4+ years old). Only 3 reviews from 2024 and 2019. Current performance may differ significantly.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN: 8 of 10 reviews explicitly mention failure to show up, failure to return calls, or poor communication. This is not isolated—it reflects organizational dysfunction.
• CONTRADICTORY PROFILE: Positive reviews (3 five-star ratings) praise technician skill and service quality, but negative reviews (6 one-to-two-star ratings) describe inability to access those technicians due to scheduling/communication failures. This suggests good workers trapped in a broken system.
• PRICING CONCERN: One detailed review (2020-09-08) describes inadequate diagnosis followed by expensive repair, suggesting potential quality-of-diagnosis issues despite skilled labor.
• NO FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Reviews are detailed, specific, and varied in language. Negative reviews cite concrete failures (missed appointments, no callbacks, specific dates). Positive reviews mention specific technicians by name. Pattern appears authentic.

This score should be treated with CAUTION due to age of data (most reviews 4+ years old), but the HIGH confidence in professionalism and project completion dimensions is justified by the consistent, detailed pattern of failures across 8 of 10 reviews. The company's technical capability is real, but operational reliability is severely compromised. Current performance cannot be assumed without recent reviews.

Egbert Plumbing shows severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion, with multiple reviews citing poor communication, unresponsiveness, and failure to follow up with clients. While two positive reviews praise their technical skill and reliability, they are heavily outweighed by four damaging 1-star reviews describing dishonesty, sloppy workmanship, and abandonment of callbacks. Pricing concerns are mentioned in only two reviews, with one citing unfair charges and another noting reasonable rates. The company's track record suggests serious operational and communication failures that undermine customer trust.

• CRITICAL: Four 1-star reviews with severe allegations (flooding damage, dishonesty, non-responsiveness, property damage) versus two 5-star reviews creates a highly polarized pattern. This suggests either systemic problems or potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2017-2019). Only one review from 2021 and none from 2023-2024. Recent performance is unclear.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple reviews explicitly cite ignored calls, no callbacks, and failure to contact clients about delays. This is a recurring theme across independent reviews.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE ALLEGATIONS: Two reviews describe serious damage (home flooding, moldy carpet, buckled floors, oak flooring damage). These are not minor complaints.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Positive reviews praise professionalism and skill; negative reviews describe sloppy work and dishonesty. This inconsistency suggests either highly variable service quality or that some reviews may not reflect typical experience.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 7 reviews, the extreme polarization (4 one-stars vs. 2 five-stars), age of most data (3-6 years old), and serious allegations of property damage and communication failure create significant uncertainty about current reliability. The WW Score of 42.3 reflects documented problems, but recent performance data is insufficient to confirm whether issues persist.