Find Nearby Plumbers In Draper, Utah

TB Yetter Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical expertise. The overwhelming majority of reviews (27 of 30) are 5-star ratings praising Terry's responsiveness, fair pricing, quality workmanship, and problem-solving ability. One significant negative review from 2018 regarding unprofessional driving behavior and poor customer service stands in stark contrast to all other feedback. The earliest positive review dates to 2017, with most recent reviews lacking dates but appearing contemporary. One 3-star review from 2024 noted a callback was needed for a spigot replacement and eventual failure, indicating a minor project completion concern but not a pattern.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Approximately 17 of 30 reviews lack date information, making it difficult to assess temporal distribution. Of dated reviews, most are from 2017-2024, with a concentration of undated reviews that appear recent but cannot be verified.
• OUTLIER REVIEW: One 1-star review from 2018-04-25 makes serious allegations about unprofessional driving behavior and poor customer service, which contradicts all other feedback. This review lacks specificity about actual plumbing work quality and may reflect a personal conflict rather than service quality.
• PATTERN OBSERVATION: The high concentration of 5-star reviews (27 of 30) with detailed, specific praise is consistent with genuine customer satisfaction rather than fake reviews. Reviews contain varied, specific details (rock in disposal, valve replacement strategy, bidet installation, etc.) that suggest authentic experiences.
• MINOR QUALITY CONCERN: The 3-star review from 2024 indicates a spigot replacement that required a callback and eventually failed within 4 years, suggesting potential durability issues with certain components or installation quality on that specific job.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable, based on 30 reviews with strong data across all dimensions and HIGH confidence levels. However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that one serious negative review exists (though isolated), and approximately 57% of reviews lack date verification, which slightly limits temporal trend analysis. The consistent, specific praise across dated and undated reviews suggests genuine customer satisfaction, but the 2024 callback issue warrants monitoring for potential quality consistency.

Parley's PPM shows genuine strengths in professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, communication, and knowledgeable technicians — particularly Ellery. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern, with at least five reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, lack of billing transparency, or inflated parts markups, which substantially drags down the pricing dimension. Project completion is generally positive, with callbacks honored and work completed, but one detailed negative review describes a multi-step failure involving incorrect parts installation, a late technician, and refusal to service older equipment — raising real concerns about consistency. The score reflects a contractor with capable technicians and good follow-through on most jobs, but with a persistent pricing integrity problem that prospective customers should investigate carefully.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least 5 reviews independently describe overcharging, hidden markups on parts, or lack of billing transparency. One reviewer found the exact part installed was available for $35 but was charged $120 for it. Another was charged $807 for a job including a disposal available for $100 elsewhere. This is a consistent and specific pattern, not isolated complaints.
• WORKMANSHIP INCONSISTENCY: One detailed 1-star review describes a technician installing the wrong valve, a follow-up technician arriving 3 hours late, and the company refusing to service water heaters over 15 years old unless a new unit was purchased. This suggests uneven technician quality.
• RECENCY WARNING: Several reviews are significantly older than 12 months — 9 of 15 reviews are from 2021 or earlier, with 7 from 2018 or earlier. The most recent reviews (2021–2023) are more positive, but the pricing complaints span multiple years. Older reviews were given reduced weight in scoring.
• POSSIBLE TECHNICIAN DEPENDENCY: Multiple positive reviews specifically name individual technicians (Ellery, Roger, Colin, Robert). This suggests quality may be highly dependent on which technician is assigned, rather than reflecting consistent company-wide standards.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, rating, and specificity. Negative reviews include specific dollar amounts and detailed narratives. No suspicious uniformity was detected.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning over a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable — however, the significant age spread of the review pool and the consistent pricing complaints across multiple independent reviewers mean prospective customers should treat the pricing dimension finding as a serious and credible concern rather than an outlier.

Dustin receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism and experience, with multiple reviewers praising his honesty, reliability, technical knowledge, and ability to explain work clearly. His experience score is bolstered by specific mentions of code compliance, problem identification (e.g., catching a gas issue others missed), and quality workmanship across new installs, remodels, and repairs. Pricing is rated favorably in the two reviews that mention it, with one reviewer specifically noting he came in at or below his bid and remained affordable. However, project completion receives a moderate deduction due to one reviewer — a family member — explicitly noting difficulty getting scheduled and calls going unreturned, suggesting responsiveness and capacity issues. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of most reviews, with only two from the past 12 months.

• Only 5 total reviews — sample size is too small for high-confidence scoring across all dimensions.
• 3 of 5 reviews are older than 1 year, and 2 reviews (2015 and 2018) are significantly outdated — business practices and quality may have changed substantially since then.
• One review (2019) from a self-identified family member raises a mild conflict-of-interest concern, though it is notably mixed rather than purely positive, which adds credibility.
• Reviews are generally specific and varied in detail, reducing fake review suspicion — no identical phrasing or suspicious patterns detected.
• The 2019 family member review explicitly flags a responsiveness and scheduling concern, which is a meaningful negative signal for project completion and professionalism that should not be dismissed.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only — the small review pool (5 reviews), heavy reliance on outdated reviews (3 from 2015–2019), and limited pricing data mean the score cannot be considered a reliable representation of current service quality.

Lee demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional demeanor, as evidenced by multiple positive reviews praising his knowledge, honesty, and friendly approach. However, a critical 1-star review from 2022 reveals severe project completion failures: a kitchen remodel plumbing job resulted in 4 leaks, poor communication about design issues, and refusal to remedy the work or offer compensation. This recent failure substantially undermines confidence in his ability to complete complex projects reliably. The five older positive reviews (2018–2019) lack specificity and show suspicious consistency in phrasing, while the detailed negative review provides concrete evidence of poor follow-through and integrity issues on a major job.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Five positive reviews are from 2018–2019 (4–6 years old); only one recent review from 2022, which is highly negative. This suggests a possible decline in service quality or a shift in business practices.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The five positive reviews contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal specific detail ('awesome,' 'fantastic,' 'best of the best,' 'wonderful service'). Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('honest,' 'reliable,' 'friendly,' 'hard-working') without concrete examples. This pattern is consistent with fabricated or incentivized reviews.
• CRITICAL PROJECT FAILURE: The 2022 review documents a major kitchen remodel with repeated leaks, poor upfront communication about design constraints, and refusal to fix or compensate. This contradicts claims of 'integrity' in older reviews and suggests either a serious decline or that older reviews may not be authentic.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 6 reviews total; the negative review carries disproportionate weight due to its specificity and recency, but confidence remains moderate due to small sample.

This score should be treated with caution. While Lee shows technical competence, the recent catastrophic project failure and suspicious pattern of older generic positive reviews significantly undermine trust in the overall rating. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects the conflict between older praise and recent documented poor performance; however, the authenticity of the older reviews is questionable, and the 2022 failure is concrete and detailed. Potential customers should heavily weight the recent negative experience and request references from jobs completed in the past 12 months.

FloodPros exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by reports of unprofessional behavior (arriving intoxicated, rude staff, poor communication), though some individual technicians (Jordan, Nick, Paul) received praise. Project completion is critically weak, with numerous reviews documenting abandoned work, incomplete jobs, and failure to honor callbacks or follow through on promised services. Pricing practices are highly problematic, featuring hidden charges, billing for unperformed work, and aggressive upselling. While some technicians demonstrated competence, the company's systemic failures in project management and accountability severely damage overall credibility.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2024-06-09 and 2022-06-10 contain generic praise with minimal detail ('Great service, the staff were amazing!', empty reviews rated 5-star). These appear artificially inflated and lack specificity compared to detailed negative reviews.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviews allege theft of personal belongings, workers arriving intoxicated/under the influence, and property damage. These are consistent across multiple reviews from different time periods (2020-2019).
• BILLING FRAUD CONCERNS: Repeated pattern of billing for services not rendered, charging for work never completed, and attempting to collect on disputed invoices through collection agencies. Insurance fraud allegations in 2023-2025 reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Systematic pattern of abandoning projects mid-completion, leaving equipment on-site for months, and refusing to return for callbacks or finish work.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Consistent reports of poor communication, unresponsive management, and refusal to address customer concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued serious issues (incomplete work, billing disputes, poor communication), indicating problems are ongoing, not historical.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 56 reviews with substantial detail and consistency in negative patterns. The company demonstrates systemic failures in project completion, billing practices, and professionalism that span multiple years. While some individual technicians received positive mentions, they cannot offset the company's institutional problems. The presence of apparent fake reviews further undermines confidence in positive ratings. Consumers should exercise extreme caution or avoid this company entirely.

These reviews are for a plumbing supply store (Hajoca), not a contractor or plumber. The reviews evaluate retail service, product availability, and staff helpfulness rather than job completion, punctuality, or workmanship on actual plumbing projects. While experience/knowledge is mentioned positively (5 mentions), pricing feedback is mixed (2 mentions), and professionalism/project completion cannot be reliably assessed from supply store reviews. A WW Score cannot be calculated as this business model does not align with the contractor/plumber evaluation framework.

• CRITICAL: These reviews are for a plumbing supply retailer (Hajoca), not a contractor or plumber. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate service contractors, not retail stores.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year (6 of 8 reviews from 2013-2017). Only 1 review from 2023.
• Reviews focus on retail experience (product availability, staff friendliness, store hours) rather than project execution, job completion, or workmanship quality.
• Professionalism dimension cannot be scored—reviews mention 'friendly' and 'helpful' staff but do not address punctuality, communication on projects, or professional conduct in a service context.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions—no reviews discuss whether jobs were finished on time, completed fully, or callbacks were honored.
• Pricing feedback is contradictory: one review praises 'great price' and 'reasonable pricing,' while another questions a $100 price premium with no clear explanation.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because the reviews are for a plumbing supply store, not a contractor or plumber service provider. The evaluation framework does not apply to retail operations. Do not use this score for contractor evaluation purposes.