Find Nearby Plumbers In Provo, Utah

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

The aggregate review pool spans multiple businesses operating under similar names (Pro Plumbing, Oro Pro Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Heating and Air), which introduces noise but also reflects a broad pattern of service quality. The majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, politeness, and clear communication, driving a moderate-to-good professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including complaints about rude staff, missed appointments, no-shows, and unresponsive management — prevents a high professionalism score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, non-itemized invoices, inflated quotes (sometimes 4x competitors), and questionable billing practices, pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were completed well and on time, but several reviews describe abandoned work, failed inspections, jobs requiring correction by other companies, and warranty disputes. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians, but offset by reviews citing misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and work that failed inspection multiple times.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to reference at least three distinct businesses — 'Pro Plumbing', 'Oro Pro Plumbing', and 'Pro Plumbing Heating and Air' — operating under similar names. Scores may reflect blended performance across different companies and should be interpreted with caution.
• 25 reviews contain no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 and 2025-05-10 share very similar generic phrasing ('great job', 'very professional', 'highly recommend') with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants reduced confidence in the upper end of positive scores.
• DRIVER CONDUCT REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews (2019, 2023, 2024) describe dangerous or rude driving by company vehicle operators. These are not directly scorable under the four dimensions but reflect negatively on overall brand professionalism.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A large volume of reviews are from 2024-2025 and carry full recency weight. Older reviews (pre-2020) were down-weighted in scoring. Negative patterns (overcharging, incomplete work, warranty disputes) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• BILLING AND WARRANTY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe non-itemized invoices, charges for work not performed, warranty fees on warranted equipment, and refusal to provide cost breakdowns. This is a recurring and credible pattern that materially depresses the pricing score.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required a second company to finish or correct, or failed inspection multiple times. This is a credible and recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume (196 total, 171 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the score direction, but reliability is moderated by the likely blending of multiple business entities under similar names, a detectable cluster of generic positive reviews suggesting possible review inflation, and consistent negative patterns around pricing transparency and project completion that appear across independent reviewers and multiple time periods.

Prime Plumbing receives strong and consistent praise for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers highlighting friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians across a large and diverse review base spanning many years. Technical experience and workmanship are similarly well-regarded, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians who diagnosed and resolved complex issues effectively. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, misdiagnoses requiring repeat visits, and jobs left incomplete — including at least one case of water damage caused by faulty repair. Pricing is the most significant drag on the score: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints describes charges perceived as grossly excessive, hidden fees, dispatch charges not rolled into jobs, credit card surcharges, and instances of what reviewers characterize as predatory pricing targeting elderly or uninformed customers — this dimension alone pulls the overall score down considerably.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Thank you Brandon for the great service!' (5-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04. The review 'My plumber Bobby C was friendly and highly skillful...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03. These are likely fake or bot-submitted duplicate reviews and have been flagged; confidence in the 5-star cluster from early June 2025 is reduced.
• SUSPICIOUS GENERIC REVIEWS: A significant number of reviews consist of a single sentence or less with no specific detail (e.g., 'Great job', 'He did a great job', 'Awesome service'). Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings are present and provide no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW REFERENCES A DIFFERENT COMPANY NAME: One review explicitly praises 'Modern Septic Plumbing in Ocala' rather than Prime Plumbing, suggesting it may have been posted to the wrong business profile or is fabricated.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE NUMEROUS AND SPECIFIC: At least 20+ reviews across multiple years describe overcharging, including $554 to snake a drain, $847.60 to unclog two toilets, $3,000 for a 40-gallon water heater, $600+ for simple snaking jobs, and $475 for an outdoor spigot. Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company targets elderly customers.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews describe the company failing to return calls for weeks or months, not honoring quotes, not completing jobs after initial visits, and in one case abandoning an emergency repair mid-job. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The scoring gives appropriate weight to the large volume of recent reviews (2024-2025), which are more representative of current operations. Older reviews (pre-2020) reference specific technicians and owners (e.g., Dana) who may no longer be with the company, suggesting possible ownership or operational changes over time.
• UNRESOLVED DAMAGE CLAIM: At least one reviewer (January 2024) describes a botched toilet repair that caused water damage to ceilings and walls, with the company admitting human error but then failing to follow up or provide resolution — a serious project completion and liability concern.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (290 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the dimensional scores; however, the presence of confirmed duplicate reviews, numerous generic or blank reviews, and a strong recurring pattern of pricing complaints and follow-through failures means the score should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment — Prime Plumbing delivers competent and professional service in many cases but carries meaningful and well-documented risk around pricing transparency and job completion reliability.

Barlow Service Experts scores well on professionalism and experience at the individual technician level, with a large volume of reviews praising named technicians like Harry, Chris, Teilie, and others for being courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and thorough. However, the pricing dimension is severely dragged down by a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews alleging gross overcharging on parts and labor, deceptive service contract terms (the Advantage Program), and high-pressure upselling tactics — including multiple independent accounts of customers getting second opinions and finding the recommended work was unnecessary or dramatically overpriced. Project completion scores moderately well overall, but is penalized by several serious complaints including abandoned or incomplete work, failed callbacks, a technician leaving a breaker off causing a home to reach 85 degrees with no timely response, and at least one account of an unresolved gas leak creating a life-safety hazard. The gap between the quality of field technicians and the integrity of the company's sales and billing practices is the defining tension in this review set.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same date (e.g., multiple identical reviews for Chris Haynes, Trent, 'Came fast and fixed my heat pump fast', 'Fast, friendly and quick service', the scathing gas leak review, the emergency cancellation review, and others). This inflates the positive review count and may indicate a platform artifact or review manipulation. Confidence in raw review volume is reduced.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Many 5-star reviews from 2025 are extremely brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent work.', 'Great service, super equipment.', 'Very courteous', blank text with 5 stars). These provide no usable scoring data and may be padding.
• SERIOUS SAFETY ALLEGATION: At least one detailed review (duplicated) alleges Barlow technicians left an undiagnosed gas leak in a home over multiple visits spanning 2023-2024, creating a life-threatening hazard. This is an extreme negative data point for both experience and project completion.
• SYSTEMATIC PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent, detailed reviews across many years consistently allege price gouging on parts (capacitors, flame sensors, regulators, refrigerant), deceptive Advantage Program contract terms, and upselling of unnecessary equipment. This is not isolated — it is a recurring pattern spanning 2011 to 2025.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name a manager 'Brad' as arrogant, dismissive, and condescending when customers raised billing disputes. This suggests a systemic customer service failure at the management level.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews are from 2025 and are predominantly 5-star. Negative reviews are spread across 2013-2025. The concentration of recent positives alongside a long tail of serious negatives may reflect improved field technician quality but persistent structural issues with pricing and sales practices.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text content (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the very large review volume, but consumers should weight the pricing dimension heavily — the pattern of overcharging and deceptive contract complaints is too consistent and detailed across too many independent reviewers over too many years to dismiss, and the score of 72.1 likely overstates overall trustworthiness for price-sensitive customers.

Black Diamond Experts demonstrates strong individual technician performance, with dozens of reviews praising named technicians for being knowledgeable, friendly, communicative, and professional — driving solid scores in professionalism and experience. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: a substantial number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, deceptive, or dramatically higher than competitor quotes, pulling the pricing dimension well below average. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed efficiently and thoroughly, but there is a meaningful pattern of appointment cancellations, no-shows, failed follow-through on estimates, and repeat service calls to fix incomplete or faulty work. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine technical talent undermined by systemic issues in pricing transparency and scheduling reliability.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., 'Fast complete service. Friendly Frank Scalmanini' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Jeff Supplee was an exactly the kind of knowledgeable...' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Justin was very experienced...' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Black Diamond was able to come to my house faster...' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; and multiple others). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or a system error duplicating submissions. Confidence in the most recent cluster of reviews (June 2025) is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — SYSTEMIC PATTERN: A significant number of negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) across multiple years explicitly cite pricing as 2x to 4x competitor quotes for identical work. Specific examples include: $3,500 quoted for a water heater vs. market rate; $1,128 for HVAC parts worth ~$125; $800 for a 1-hour plumbing job; $30,000 electrical rewire vs. $12,000-$15,000 from competitors; $537 to move two outlets. This is not isolated — it is a recurring, multi-year pattern.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews across different years describe last-minute cancellations, no-shows, rescheduling without notice, and failure to follow up on estimates. This pattern affects the project completion score materially.
• FAKE REVIEW / MANIPULATION SUSPICION: The June 2025 review cluster contains at least 7-8 pairs of near-identical reviews posted 1-2 days apart with identical text. Several reviews in this cluster are also blank (no text, only a 5-star rating). This artificially inflates the recent review count and average rating. Scores have been weighted to account for this.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews span from 2017 through mid-2025. The most recent cluster (June 2025) is heavily affected by suspected duplication. Reviews from 2019-2024 contain the most credible mix of positive and negative feedback and were weighted most heavily.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least two reviews describe safety violations or unlicensed/improper work (one citing a Division of Professional Licensing citation for ungrounded electrical work on a $30,000+ job); one describes a flooded house twice from plumbing work; one describes an HVAC system that failed repeatedly after a $17,000 install with no follow-up support. These are high-severity incidents that materially affect trustworthiness.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate review patterns in the most recent cluster, a systemic and multi-year pricing complaint pattern, and several serious workmanship and follow-through failures documented across the review history.