Find Nearby Plumbers In Bozeman, Montana

This single review from October 2019 describes efficient technical work (water heater installed in 1 hour 25 minutes) and professional service delivery, but is heavily overshadowed by significant billing concerns. The customer was charged for 2 hours of work when the actual job time was approximately 1.5 hours, and the company's justification (billing from shop departure time, comparison to other jobs) was not satisfactory to the reviewer. The technician's efficiency and professionalism are noted positively, but the pricing practice raises serious fairness questions. With only one review and no additional data, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from October 2019 (5+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• BILLING PRACTICE ALERT: Customer explicitly questions billing methodology (charging from shop departure rather than actual on-site time). This suggests a potential systemic pricing concern that warrants investigation.
• SINGLE DATA POINT: All dimension scores are based on one review only, making confidence assessment unreliable.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of data (2019). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for contractor evaluation.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. That review raises serious concerns about pricing transparency — the owner refused to disclose an hourly rate and charged $600 for approximately 30 minutes of labor with minimal parts used. Professionalism was flagged because the owner quoted the job but sent a technician to perform the work without clear communication about this arrangement. The job does appear to have been completed, which is the only partial positive signal, but the reviewer felt exploited by the pricing structure. No data exists on workmanship quality or technical experience.

• PRICING CONCERN: Reviewer explicitly states $600 was charged for approximately 30 minutes of work with only two minor pipe connectors used as parts — a significant value-for-money red flag.
• TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Owner Pat reportedly refused to provide an hourly rate and insisted on fixed 'by the job' pricing only, which the reviewer found deceptive given the short duration of work.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 1 review is present. A WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews. All dimension scores carry extremely low evidentiary weight.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: With only one review, no pattern analysis for fake reviews is possible, but the review itself is specific, detailed, and credible in tone.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more reviews are available.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The one review is a 1-star complaint focused entirely on professionalism, specifically describing inappropriate language used in the presence of children. No information was provided regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The professionalism score is set very low given the explicit and serious nature of the complaint.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Pricing, Project Completion, and Experience dimensions have NO DATA and were excluded from scoring.
• Single review is a 1-star complaint; no positive or neutral reviews exist to provide balance or context.
• Professionalism score of 10 is based on a single mention and should be treated with very low confidence despite the seriousness of the allegation.

This report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of all dimension scores. That said, the one review is substantive and specific: the crew worked efficiently, finished ahead of schedule, and even addressed additional small issues at no charge, suggesting strong project completion. Pricing transparency was explicitly noted, with the contractor helping the customer prioritize work to minimize costs. Professionalism and experience are implied through the multi-day, multi-person job being handled smoothly, though no explicit detail on punctuality, communication style, or technical problem-solving is provided. All scores are conservative due to the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2017-08-08, which is more than 7 years old. This data may not reflect current service quality.
• With only one review, fake review detection is not possible. No patterns to assess.

This score should be treated as highly preliminary and not trusted for decision-making — it is based on a single review from over 7 years ago, providing no statistical basis for confidence in any dimension.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praises Cal's attitude and willingness to respond during a snowstorm emergency, which speaks positively to professionalism and responsiveness. Project completion is implied — the water was restored — but no detail is given about timeline, follow-through, or complexity. Experience is loosely referenced by the mention of new or existing well work, but no technical specifics are provided. Pricing is not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2012 — over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• All dimensions scored from a single review; confidence is LIMITED across the board and scores should not be treated as representative.

This score report is based on a single review from 2012 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current or consistent performance.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly mentions poor responsiveness (no callback within 48 hours), which directly impacts the professionalism dimension. However, with only one mention and no data on pricing, project completion, or experience, no meaningful overall score can be derived. This review predates the past 12 months significantly (January 2017), further limiting its relevance.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is over 7 years old (January 2017); does not reflect current business practices or performance
• No information available on pricing, project completion quality, or technical experience

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of contractor performance; a minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a valid WW Score.