Find Nearby Plumbers In Missoula, Montana

This contractor's reviews are dominated by a consistent and serious pattern of billing significantly above quoted prices, with multiple reviewers reporting overcharges ranging from $800 to $2,000 above agreed quotes and no satisfactory explanation provided — this single issue drives the pricing score to a critically low level. Professionalism scores moderately because responsiveness and friendly demeanor are acknowledged across several reviews, but one reviewer reports the contractor stopped answering calls after a billing dispute, which is a significant mark against follow-through. Project completion is mixed: most jobs appear to have been finished, but one reviewer reports a pump failure within a year and another describes the contractor doing unrequested work that inflated the bill. Workmanship is generally described as competent and skilled, but the sample is small and most reviews are from 2013–2022, with nothing in the past 12 months, limiting confidence in current performance.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: At least 4 out of 7 reviewers explicitly report being billed materially more than the quoted price, with overcharges described as 65% above quote in one case. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY WARNING: All 7 reviews are older than 12 months. The most recent is from July 2022 (over 2 years old). No recent reviews are available to assess current business practices.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH CONCERN: One reviewer reports the contractor stopped returning calls after a billing dispute, suggesting possible avoidance of accountability.
• PUMP FAILURE: One reviewer (2018) reported a newly installed pump failed within one year, raising a quality/warranty concern.
• REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 reviews total. While usable, this is a small sample and scores should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a consistent and multi-source billing complaint pattern that is credible and specific, but the small review count and age of all reviews (none within the past 12 months) limit confidence in how accurately this reflects the contractor's current practices.

Raptor Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism receives partial credit due to positive mentions of promptness, politeness, and responsiveness in three older reviews, but is significantly dragged down by the most recent 2024 review describing inept work and a failure to diagnose a basic plumbing problem across two callbacks. Pricing is a clear weak point, with two separate reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging — one describing triple-charging for parts and excessive labor rates, and another noting prices were 'a little high.' Project completion is the most damaging dimension: the 2024 review documents two failed repair attempts on a toilet and an ongoing unresolved tub faucet leak, meaning work was left incomplete and incorrect; only older reviews describe successful job completion. Experience scores low due to the 2024 reviewer's account of an incorrect part being installed and a problem the homeowner solved themselves in five minutes via a Google search, which directly contradicts the 'knowledgeable' praise found in older reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (September 2024) is the most detailed and most negative, describing failed repairs, incorrect parts, and unresolved issues. Three of the four positive reviews are from 2019–2022, meaning the positive pattern may not reflect current service quality.
• POSSIBLE QUALITY DECLINE: The contrast between older positive reviews and the detailed 2024 negative review suggests a potential decline in workmanship quality over time. More recent data should be weighted more heavily.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Two independent reviewers (2022 and 2024) raised explicit concerns about overcharging and triple-charging for parts, which is a consistent and credible pattern rather than an isolated complaint.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. This is insufficient to draw high-confidence conclusions about any dimension. All scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 2021 and 2019 five-star reviews contain limited specifics and follow a similar brief praise structure, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight compared to the more detailed negative reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 5 reviews spanning 5 years, the most credible and recent review is strongly negative, and pricing complaints appear across multiple independent reviewers, making the overall score unreliable as a standalone indicator of current service quality.

The review set is sharply divided: three positive reviews praise friendly, knowledgeable technicians and good workmanship, while three negative reviews describe serious failures in professionalism, accountability, and project follow-through. Professionalism is heavily penalized by two detailed accounts of poor communication, failure to follow up, and refusal to take responsibility for mistakes — patterns corroborated by multiple office staff admissions within the reviews themselves. Pricing drew an explicit complaint of rates exceeding $300/hour with no offsetting positive pricing commentary, pulling that dimension down significantly. Project completion is mixed: some jobs were completed well, but one resulted in a burst pipe caused by incomplete work, and another required a second visit that was not properly authorized or communicated. Experience scores moderately — positive reviews cite skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but the siding/pipe incident demonstrates a meaningful quality-control failure.

• Three of the four negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, lending them strong credibility. The positive reviews are comparatively brief and less specific, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.
• The most recent negative review (2025-06-04 is positive; 2024-10-02 is negative) suggests ongoing professionalism and communication issues as recently as late 2024, which should be weighted heavily under recency rules.
• Two reviews are older than 3 years (2021 and one from 2023), reducing their relevance to current business practices.
• No fake review patterns detected — language varies across reviews and negative reviews contain specific, verifiable details including named staff and specific dollar amounts.
• Small sample size of only 7 reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores. The WW Score should be treated with caution.

With only 7 reviews spanning four years, including three substantive negative reviews describing systemic issues with communication, accountability, and workmanship quality, this WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability but directionally suggests meaningful service consistency problems that prospective customers should investigate further.

Right Now Plumbing and Heating receives a low WW Score driven primarily by a pattern of serious complaints across all four dimensions in recent reviews. Pricing is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers explicitly alleging price gouging, unauthorized charges, and quotes far above market rate — one reviewer documented a $4,000 labor markup on a $1,500 unit, and another was billed $1,400 without authorization. Professionalism suffers from accounts of poor communication, a technician shutting down mid-conversation, failure to follow through on labeling requests over multiple years, and an owner who acknowledged fault but offered no recompense. Project completion is also damaged by a multi-year labeling failure that caused downstream problems, work that caused damage requiring a third party to fix, and a failure to deliver a promised plumbing service. Experience scores low due to documented instances of incorrect labeling, caused damage, and quotes that multiple independent plumbers described as grossly inflated. The three positive reviews (two from 2023–2024, one from 2019) do provide some counterweight, noting responsiveness, fair prices, and good results, but they are outnumbered and outweighed by the detailed negative accounts.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of negative reviews are from 2023–2024, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. The positive reviews skew older (2019) or are less detailed.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 5-star review from 2023-04-08 is vague, uses generic praise ('awesome people,' 'honest and hard working'), and contains no specific job details. Confidence in this review is reduced.
• UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES: One reviewer explicitly states they were charged $1,400 without being given an estimate or authorization — a serious consumer protection concern.
• DOCUMENTED DAMAGE: One reviewer states the company caused damage to their heating system that a competing business had to repair, and no recompense was offered by the owner.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: At least three independent reviewers across different years describe pricing that was significantly above market rate, corroborated in one case by quotes from multiple other licensed plumbers.
• OWNER RESPONSE CONCERN: The owner acknowledged firing an employee responsible for damage but did not offer any financial remedy to the affected customer, suggesting a customer service gap at the leadership level.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while confidence levels are HIGH due to mention counts, the small total review pool means this score should be treated as a strong directional signal rather than a definitive assessment, and prospective customers are advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

Anderson's receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with serious and repeated complaints about professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical competence. Scheduling practices are described as chaotic and customer-hostile, with multiple reviewers reporting they were never called back or given a specific appointment time, and office staff described as having a poor attitude. Pricing complaints are severe, including allegations of fraudulent billing, charges that doubled quoted amounts, and fees collected for work that was never performed or that failed to fix the problem. Project completion is a major failure point, with numerous accounts of jobs requiring multiple return visits to correct errors, work left unfinished, and a complete lack of follow-through on callbacks. Technical experience scores are dragged down by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts replaced, pumps installed backwards, and an unsafe electrical installation that posed a fire hazard. The few positive reviews (3 out of 12) praise specific technicians and one smooth installation, but these are heavily outweighed by the volume and severity of negative experiences.

• The 3 positive reviews are generic in nature and lack the operational detail present in the negative reviews; however, they are not identical in phrasing and are not flagged as definitively fake.
• The most detailed and severe negative review (2019-05-16) describes a pattern of repeated failures over 4 years, unsafe electrical work, and hostile owner behavior — this is a high-credibility, high-severity account.
• Multiple independent reviewers describe the same scheduling dysfunction (no set appointments, called when available), suggesting a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• Two separate reviewers allege billing fraud or deceptive billing practices, which is a serious pattern warranting caution.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (2017–2021 range); the most recent reviews (2024, 2020) still reflect similar negative patterns, suggesting issues have not been resolved over time.
• The single 2024 review is positive and specific (geothermal specialist, parts in stock, same-day service), which may indicate the company performs better in its specialty niche than in general plumbing/HVAC work.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews with strong data coverage across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence; the score reliably reflects a contractor with serious and consistent deficiencies in professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and technical competence.

Advanced Installations receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of ignored calls, fabricated excuses, and complete failure to communicate with both customers and the home warranty company. Project completion is a critical failure point — multiple reviewers describe jobs left unfinished for weeks or months, paperwork never submitted, and no resolution delivered. Pricing received the lowest possible confidence but is still alarming, with one reviewer documenting a bill nearly $1,700 over the quoted amount and suspected hour-padding by an unsupervised non-plumber helper. The only partial positive signal comes from two mentions of competent physical work by technicians (Hank installing a water heater, Mark doing initial damage control), which slightly elevates the experience score but does not offset the systemic failures elsewhere.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states that two of the Google reviews for this contractor were posted by the owner (Mark) himself and his son. This is a serious credibility flag and suggests the overall rating may be artificially inflated.
• RECENCY WARNING: All four reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current analysis date. The most recent is from 2022, and two reviews are from 2018 and 2015. Business practices may have changed, but the pattern of complaints is consistent across multiple years.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: At least two reviews independently describe the contractor failing to submit paperwork to the home warranty company, then becoming unreachable — suggesting a systemic behavioral pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One review documents a significant overbilling incident and unsupervised non-licensed labor, raising questions about financial transparency and licensing compliance.
• LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 4 reviews are available. While a WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2015–2022, includes a credible allegation of fake self-posted reviews, and reflects a consistent multi-year pattern of serious failures — the score of 18.7 should be treated as a strong warning signal but not a statistically definitive assessment.