Find Nearby Plumbers In Provo, Utah

The majority of reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including a no-call no-show, rude behavior by a technician named Scott, an appointment cancellation without notice, and a plumber who insulted a customer's wife — meaningfully depresses the professionalism dimension. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers cite fair or below-market rates, but several explicitly describe being overcharged, quoted worst-case-scenario prices and billed in full, or charged for unnecessary work, pulling the pricing score down. Project completion is similarly split — most jobs are described as completed well, but there are notable failures including a job left out of code, a repair that failed the next day with no warranty honored, a no-show after payment, and a leak that recurred due to improper sealing. Experience scores moderately well given many reviewers cite knowledgeable, skilled technicians, but is tempered by reviews describing poor workmanship, incorrect installations, and dishonest diagnoses.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'On time, communicative, super friendly, good job done quickly' (5-star) appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05 with identical text. The review 'Plumb perfect Replaced our maniblock...' appears on both 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03 with identical text. The review 'Great job at a very reasonable price...' appears on both 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03 with identical text. These three pairs of duplicates are likely fake or artificially inflated reviews and have been treated as single reviews for scoring purposes.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Plumb Crazy LLC', 'Plumb Perfect', and reference technicians across very different geographic markets (Utah, Virginia/Maryland, California/Nevada). This review set likely aggregates reviews for multiple separate businesses operating under similar names, which significantly undermines the reliability of any composite score.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: A substantial portion of reviews date from 2009 to 2019, with the most recent cluster from 2025. Older reviews may not reflect current ownership, staffing, or service quality. The negative reviews from 2021–2024 (rude owner Scott, no-show, rude behavior in home) are more recent and carry elevated weight.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews describe serious issues — a plumber refusing to wear a mask and being antagonistic, a technician insulting a customer's wife, a job installed out of city code, refusal to honor warranty on defective work, and a no-call no-show. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years and apparent business entities.
• SCORE INFLATION RISK: The large volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great service.', 'It went well.', 'unknown', blank reviews) with no substantive detail inflates the apparent rating. These reviews were excluded from dimension scoring but contribute to the raw review count.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its trustworthiness as a guide to a single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names, the presence of confirmed duplicate (likely fake) reviews, and a recurring pattern of serious negative experiences that should not be dismissed.

American Plumbing Services has a large and genuinely mixed review record spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible negative reviews describing rude technicians, ignored callbacks, no-shows, and dismissive office staff — including serious allegations of dishonesty and attempted fraud — despite a strong majority of reviewers praising individual technicians by name for courtesy and communication. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers explicitly called out a paid estimate fee ($45–$70), opaque lump-sum billing, and quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, while a meaningful number of others praised affordability and fair pricing, creating a polarized picture. Project completion is moderately positive but undermined by several reviews describing abandoned work, missed appointments, unresolved callbacks, and a technician who installed a water softener cartridge without removing its shrink wrap. Experience scores are generally positive — many reviewers praised technical knowledge and problem-solving — but are offset by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, refused safety tests, and at least one allegation of deliberate dishonesty in diagnosing a leak.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (all 5-star). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to originate from different geographic markets (New Jersey water main work vs. DFW plumbing vs. California locations), suggesting this may be a shared business name or aggregated profile across multiple unrelated companies. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2021-09-21 to 2021-09-22 (three reviews within one day) use very similar language praising affordability, promptness, and knowledge with no specific job details. These show possible fake review patterns and have been weighted conservatively.
• Multiple serious misconduct allegations are present: one reviewer alleges a technician fabricated evidence of a water leak (2020-02-22); another alleges a technician refused to perform a covered gas leak test leaving the household in a dangerous situation for 4 weeks (2020-01-10); another alleges theft of items from a garage (2019-12-16); and another alleges a technician made a comment about the homeowner's wealth to justify a charge (2021-07-29). These are not isolated complaints and materially reduce confidence in professionalism and integrity scores.
• A pattern of deteriorating service quality over time is noted by multiple long-term customers (reviews from 2015 and 2016) who explicitly state that quality declined as the company grew. More recent negative reviews (2019–2023) continue this trend.
• The review corpus spans from 2014 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) represent the majority of the dataset and may not reflect current service quality. Recent reviews (2022–2025) are more mixed-to-positive but fewer in number.
• One review (2019-10-02) appears to be a misdirected review for an unrelated business ('AV Auto Electric') and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given credible allegations of fraud, safety negligence, and theft, a likely multi-entity review pool spanning different geographic markets, and a documented pattern of service quality decline noted by repeat customers over time.

Quick Quality Plumbing earns strong marks for responsiveness, friendliness, and communication, with many reviewers praising same-day or next-day service and courteous technicians. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a pattern of aggressive upselling, unsolicited marketing contacts, and at least one incident where a technician left a gas line improperly tightened. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple reviews describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, repeated cancelled appointments, and work that failed shortly after completion requiring a return visit or a competing plumber. Pricing is mixed — several reviewers found the company fair or affordable, while others reported quotes that doubled on-site, a near-$500 charge for a basic drain clearing, and a $700 swamp cooler repair that left the unit still broken. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of satisfied customers describing skilled diagnostics and quality outcomes, but is tempered by explicit complaints about shoddy workmanship across multiple independent reviews spanning several years.

• 7 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank 5-star and 1-star reviews cannot contribute usable data.
• Several recent 5-star reviews use very generic praise with no specifics ('They were great', 'Smooth and headache free', 'Went well') which may indicate solicited or low-effort reviews. The company was explicitly called out by two reviewers for emailing and texting customers to leave reviews, which inflates review volume and potentially skews ratings upward.
• One reviewer explicitly states the company sent an email asking for a good review before they left their negative review — this is a direct solicitation flag that reduces confidence in the aggregate star rating.
• A pattern of unsolicited marketing texts and emails to customers is documented across multiple reviews, including one reviewer who received a text to their work phone sourced from a building permit list. The owner confirmed this practice in a response, which is a reputational and ethical concern.
• Negative reviews span from 2017 through 2025, suggesting recurring issues with project completion and pricing transparency are not isolated incidents but a persistent pattern.
• One review describes a technician leaving a gas line hissing after a repair, which is a serious safety concern and a significant workmanship failure.
• Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) were given reduced weight in scoring. A meaningful portion of the review base is 1–8 years old.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable, but confidence is moderated by confirmed review solicitation practices that likely inflate the overall star rating and suppress the true rate of negative experiences.

Bert's Waterworks earns consistently strong marks across all four dimensions based on explicit reviewer feedback. Professionalism is the most frequently praised attribute, with multiple reviewers highlighting punctuality, friendliness, honesty, and going above and beyond — such as helping a pregnant customer salvage belongings during a repair. Pricing is noted favorably by several reviewers, with one detailed account showing Bert's came in dramatically lower than a competitor ($450 vs. a $6,000 estimate), though one reviewer noted they can sometimes be more expensive than others, keeping the price score conservative. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers citing same-day service, on-time arrivals, and jobs finished faster than expected. Experience scores are backed by specific accounts of skilled troubleshooting and quality workmanship, reinforcing the technical credibility of the team.

• Several reviews are significantly dated — 7 of 13 reviews are from 2016 or earlier, with the oldest from 2010. These carry reduced weight under recency rules and may not reflect current service quality.
• One review (Date: 2014-10-03) contains only the word 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• One review (Date: 2013-02-11) mentions fixing a refrigerator, which is outside typical plumbing scope — this may indicate a different service type or misattributed review, and was not used to score plumbing-specific dimensions.
• A few reviews use somewhat generic praise (e.g., 'They are really good. They are polite and do the job correctly.') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points. However, the majority of reviews contain enough specific detail to avoid a fake review flag overall.
• Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months relative to a 2023–2024 evaluation window, meaning the score is largely driven by older feedback. Business quality may have changed.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the dimensional scores are well-supported by explicit reviewer evidence, but the heavy skew toward reviews older than 3–10 years means the score reflects historical rather than current performance, and should be interpreted with caution.

High Point demonstrates strong technical capability and generally professional service, with multiple reviews praising responsiveness, friendliness, and workmanship quality. However, significant inconsistency exists across team members—one review explicitly describes a subordinate as flaky and unreliable, with incomplete follow-up on diagnosis. Pricing appears fair when mentioned, but project completion shows mixed results, with one customer abandoning the company due to unresolved issues. The owner's willingness to address problems when made aware is noted, but this reactive approach suggests systemic accountability gaps. Overall score reflects solid fundamentals undermined by reliability and consistency concerns.

• RECENCY ISSUE: All reviews are from 2016–2018 (6–8 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and critical 1-star and 4-star reviews. One review explicitly states experience depends heavily on which technician is assigned, suggesting quality control or training variability.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT: One review (2017-06-15) describes a job abandoned after initial diagnosis with no follow-up, directly impacting project completion score.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant age of reviews (6–8 years), and notable inconsistency in customer experiences across different team members. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts but insufficient recency and volume to confidently predict current performance.

Beehive Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous communication, friendliness, and responsiveness across many years of reviews. Project completion is also a clear strength — jobs were consistently finished, estimates were honored, and follow-through was noted even when unexpected complications arose. Experience scores well too, with multiple reviewers commenting on technical knowledge, problem-solving, and quality of workmanship. However, pricing is a notable drag on the overall score: at least three reviewers explicitly called out costs as high or surprising, with one reviewer calculating an effective rate of $400/hr and another noting the same job cost half as much the prior year, pulling the pricing dimension down significantly. The WW Score reflects a contractor with strong service delivery but a consistent pattern of pricing concerns that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 8 years, with the most recent review dated June 2016. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance, pricing, and staffing may differ substantially from what is reflected here.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain very little detail (e.g., 'It went very well.' with a 5-star rating). These provide minimal usable data and were weighted accordingly.
• PRICING CONCERN PATTERN: At least 3 independent reviewers explicitly flagged pricing as high or surprising. This is a consistent signal, not an isolated complaint, and meaningfully reduces the pricing dimension score.
• POSSIBLE RATING INFLATION: Multiple 5-star reviews contain sparse or no substantive detail, which may reflect rating inflation or low-effort reviews rather than genuine high satisfaction across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the strong volume of reviews and consistent signals on professionalism and completion, but is significantly limited by the age of the review set — all reviews predate 2017 — meaning this score should not be treated as representative of the contractor's current quality or pricing practices.