Find Nearby Plumbers In Provo, Utah

The review set is deeply polarized: two strongly positive reviews praise responsiveness, affordability, and genuine care, while three reviews — including two 1-star accounts — describe serious misconduct including escalating charges for unnecessary services, abandoned work, property damage, and pressure tactics. The two most damaging reviews involve the owner Vijay directly and describe patterns of upselling, leaving equipment inside a customer's pipe, and attempting to suppress a negative review. The positive reviews involve different technicians (Ken, Ed) and are older, which limits their ability to offset the serious negative incidents. Project completion and pricing scores are severely dragged down by the documented failures to complete agreed work and the pattern of mid-job price escalation.

• Two 1-star reviews describe a consistent pattern of mid-job price escalation by owner Vijay, suggesting a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer reports that Vijay left 100 feet of hydro-jet hose inside their pipe and caused additional property damage (broken AC line), which was later repaired by a competing plumber at no extra cost — indicating serious competence concerns.
• Vijay allegedly contacted a reviewer to request removal of their negative review, which is a significant integrity red flag.
• All reviews are dated between 2017 and 2019 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current business practices and should be treated with caution.
• The positive reviews involve different named technicians (Ken, Ed) rather than the owner Vijay, who is the subject of all negative reviews. This suggests quality may vary significantly by technician.
• With only 5 total reviews, the sample size is very small. The WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.

This score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), the age of all reviews (2017–2019 with no recent data), and the stark split between positive experiences with non-owner technicians and serious misconduct allegations against the owner — making it difficult to assess the contractor's current, consistent quality.

The usable review data paints a deeply concerning picture of professionalism. The most detailed and recent eligible review (2023) describes a technician who was disrespectful, dismissive, and condescending toward a customer, reducing her to tears — a severe professionalism failure that heavily drags the score down. The only positive review (2017) is over six years old and provides minimal detail, offering limited counterbalance. Pricing signals are mixed: one reviewer praised the price as lower than expected, while the 2023 reviewer noted a suspicious same-day price increase after the technician was already on-site, suggesting potential lack of transparency. Project completion and experience data are extremely thin, based on a single vague positive review, and cannot be weighted heavily.

• One review (2021-11-08) appears to be about a driving incident on a freeway and has no relevance to plumbing or contractor services. It was excluded from scoring as it does not pertain to this business.
• The only positive review is from 2017 — over 6 years before the most recent review. Recency weighting significantly reduces its reliability as a current indicator of service quality.
• The 2017 positive review is vague and generic ('took care of everything,' 'very honest trustworthy') with no specific details about the work performed, which raises mild concern about its authenticity or usefulness.
• The 2023 review describes a potential bait-and-switch pricing tactic — advertising one price and then citing a sudden price increase only after arriving on-site. This is a red flag for pricing transparency.
• Total usable reviews is only 2, which is below the threshold for high confidence in any dimension. All scores should be treated as highly provisional.

This WW Score is based on only 2 usable reviews spanning 6 years, with all dimensions rated LIMITED confidence — this score should not be considered reliable and a significantly larger and more recent review sample is required before drawing firm conclusions.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and heavily negative, with 3 of 4 reviews being 1-star. The single positive review praises a quick response, fair price, and a well-executed gas/water line repair, but it stands alone against a pattern of serious failures. Professionalism and project completion are the most damaged dimensions, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing the contractor as unresponsive to callbacks, failing to show up after promising to, and in one case allegedly misrepresenting whether work had even been performed on-site. Experience scores low as well, with two reviewers explicitly stating the work performed did not fix the underlying problem. The one positive data point prevents scores from bottoming out entirely, but it does not meaningfully offset the weight of the negative evidence.

• All reviews are older than 6 years (most recent: 2018, oldest: 2015). This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.
• One review (2016) describes a potentially serious public health situation involving raw sewage flooding into neighboring yards and alleged misrepresentation to a landlord about whether a plumber was on-site. This is a significant conduct flag.
• Two separate reviews describe the same pattern: work performed but problem not resolved, followed by complete non-response to follow-up calls and texts. This recurring pattern of abandonment after initial service is a major reliability concern.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews total). Scores carry LOW confidence overall and should not be treated as statistically reliable representations of this contractor's full body of work.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 6 years old, and should be treated as a low-confidence historical snapshot rather than a reliable current assessment of this contractor's performance.

The two available reviews present a sharply divided picture of Romano Plumbing. The 2021 review is strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, professional workmanship, and 20+ years of experience. However, the 2014 review is a serious negative account describing the owner as rude, condescending, and unprofessional — including an unannounced nighttime visit and a two-month delay on a promised installation. Professionalism and project completion scores are heavily penalized due to the severity of the negative review's claims. With only two reviews spanning seven years, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews total — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• The two reviews are approximately 7 years apart (2014 and 2021), making it difficult to assess current and consistent performance trends.
• The negative review raises serious safety and conduct concerns, including an unannounced nighttime visit to a tenant's home and a significant scheduling failure (2-month delay on a promised installation). These are not minor complaints and should be weighted seriously.
• With only one positive and one negative review, scores for all dimensions carry very low confidence and should not be used as a reliable basis for hiring decisions.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references or more recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Both reviews are positive and speak to a contractor that responds promptly, shows up on time, and completes work thoroughly. Review 1 is notably detailed, highlighting same-day callback responsiveness, punctuality, a 5-hour thorough job, cleanup, and charging exactly the quoted price — all strong signals across multiple dimensions. Review 2 is brief but confirms satisfactory workmanship and job completion. However, with only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry only LIMITED confidence due to the very small sample size.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Review 2 (dated 2006) is over 18 years old and carries very low recency weight. Review 1 (dated 2013) is also more than 10 years old. Neither review falls within the past 12 months, meaning there is no recent data to assess current contractor performance.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the first review contains sufficient detail to appear genuine, the second review is very brief and generic ('did his job well and took care of our needs'), which slightly raises concern about its informational value, though it does not conclusively indicate a fake review.
• Pricing score is based on a single mention (Review 1 only) and should be treated with extreme caution.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over a decade old, providing no meaningful insight into the contractor's current quality or consistency.

Only two reviews exist for this business, making any scoring highly unreliable. The single positive review praises product availability, part quality, and staff responsiveness (specifically mentioning James), which contributes modestly to professionalism and experience scores. However, the negative review raises a serious concern about customer service and business practices — specifically that purchasing requires setting up a pricing account, which the reviewer characterizes as a scam. Pricing received a low score due to this explicit complaint about opaque or restrictive pricing access. Project completion could not be scored at all, as neither review referenced any installation or contracting work.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• This appears to be a plumbing supply store rather than a contractor or plumber — reviews reflect retail/supply experience, not workmanship or project completion.
• The negative review raises a potential business practice concern: pricing may not be publicly accessible without account setup, which could indicate non-transparent pricing.
• The positive review is dated 2021 (over 3 years old) and should be weighted less heavily than more recent data.
• With only 2 reviews, no pattern analysis for fake reviews is possible, but the positive review contains specific details (staff name, part descriptions) suggesting authenticity.

This score report has very low reliability due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), a wide gap in review dates, and the fact that the reviews appear to describe a retail supply business rather than a contractor performing project-based work.