Find Nearby Plumbers In Provo, Utah

The review set is small and mixed, making confident scoring difficult. Two positive reviews from 2022 highlight polite, communicative technicians who completed multi-part jobs including leak repair, pipe cleaning, toilet and faucet installation, and water heater replacement — suggesting solid hands-on capability. However, the most recent review (April 2024) is a strong negative, citing poor workmanship quality and office incompetence serious enough that the customer had to pay another contractor to fix the mistakes. This single recent negative review carries elevated weight under recency rules and meaningfully drags down scores across all dimensions. Pricing received a mixed signal: one reviewer praised a home show rate as a value, while the 2024 reviewer explicitly stated they did not receive good value and incurred additional costs due to errors.

• Only 3 reviews total — scores are low confidence and should not be treated as statistically reliable.
• The two positive reviews are both from 2022 and are now over 2 years old. The only recent review (2024) is a 1-star complaint, which is the most current signal of contractor performance.
• Recency weighting applied: the 2024 negative review was given elevated influence over the older 2022 positives.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and differing ratings, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning two years and should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability — significantly more review data is needed before this score can be considered a trustworthy representation of contractor quality.

Edge Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While many reviews from 2017 praise technicians like Kenny, Cody, and Devon for friendliness, knowledge, and efficiency, a substantial body of negative reviews—particularly from 2012–2016—document serious failures in professionalism (unresponsiveness, no-shows, poor communication), project completion (incomplete repairs, follow-up failures, water damage), and pricing ethics (overcharging, unnecessary add-ons, warranty exploitation). The company struggles with consistency, accountability, and customer service fundamentals. Positive reviews often mention specific technician names and quick service; negative reviews consistently cite systemic failures in scheduling, responsiveness, and quality assurance. The recency of reviews is mixed, with older reviews containing more detailed complaints about structural business problems.

• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: Majority of 5-star reviews are clustered on 2017-06-11 with identical formatting and generic praise; many lack specific details or mention only first names. This pattern is consistent with fake or incentivized reviews.
• POLARIZATION RED FLAG: 67 reviews split into two distinct camps—mostly 5-star (2017) vs. mostly 1-star (2012–2016). This suggests either dramatic business change, review manipulation, or platform-specific rating patterns.
• SYSTEMIC ISSUES DOCUMENTED: Multiple independent reviews from different years (2012–2016) report identical problems: unresponsiveness, no-shows, incomplete repairs, and poor follow-up. This consistency suggests real operational failures, not isolated incidents.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document overcharging (earthquake strap $75 vs. $18 retail), unnecessary add-ons, warranty exploitation, and refusal to warranty own work. These are not isolated complaints.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews praise individual technicians (Kenny, Cody, Devon, Kevin); negative reviews cite same company failures across different technicians, suggesting management/systemic issues rather than technician-specific problems.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: Disproportionate number of complaints involve home warranty work, suggesting possible contractor-warranty company dynamics or selective service quality based on job type/payment source.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in mention counts. The review dataset is heavily compromised by apparent fake reviews (2017 cluster) and extreme polarization that obscures true current performance. The score of 56.8 reflects the mathematical average, but the underlying data quality is poor. If forced to assess current reliability, weight the 2012–2016 negative reviews more heavily as they contain specific, corroborated complaints; treat 2017 positive reviews as unreliable. A site visit or recent independent review would be essential before hiring this contractor.

Bernie's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Positive reviews highlight genuine strengths: same-day responsiveness, honest disclosure of warranty coverage, fair pricing, and competent workmanship on leaks, pipes, and HVAC issues. However, four one-star reviews — spanning 2009 to 2017 — describe serious professionalism failures including rude phone manner, refusal to answer basic questions without payment, an abandoned job with an overcharge, and a non-functional water heater the day after a service call. These negative reviews are specific, detailed, and credible, preventing any dimension from scoring in the high range. The recency split is notable: the two most recent reviews (2023–2024) are strongly positive, while most negative reviews are older (2009–2017), suggesting possible improvement over time but not enough to dismiss the pattern of complaints.

• Four detailed one-star reviews describe rude or dismissive communication, an incomplete job with overcharging, refusal to provide basic phone guidance, and a water heater failing the day after a paid service call — these are serious and credible complaints that significantly weigh down professionalism and project completion scores.
• Recency note: The two most recent reviews (April 2024 and March 2023) are both 5-star and positive. The majority of negative reviews are from 2009–2017, which may indicate improvement in service quality over time, but the older negative reviews are still factored in as they are specific and detailed.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — both positive and negative reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied language, suggesting authenticity across the board.
• One review references a prior negative review by 'Michael,' suggesting a pattern of complaints that may have been partially removed or not included in this dataset — this warrants caution.
• The abandoned/incomplete job complaint (2014) and the next-day water heater failure complaint (2016) are particularly serious for a plumbing business and are weighted heavily in the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 15 years with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the significant presence of credible negative reviews and the wide date range reduce confidence in the score as a predictor of current service quality — the most recent data (2023–2024) trends positive, so consumers should weigh recent reviews more heavily when making a decision.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While technical skill and initial professionalism are evident (same-day AC service, efficient water softener installation), critical failures in project completion and follow-through severely undermine overall reliability. Two of three reviews document incomplete work or unresolved problems left with customers. Pricing concerns emerge in both negative reviews, with customers feeling overcharged or misled about necessary additional work. The most recent review (August 2024) describes particularly poor communication and customer service, including a hung-up phone call.

• CRITICAL: Two of three reviews document incomplete work or failure to follow through on callbacks. Review 1 (Aug 2024) describes incomplete valve installation with water line not reattached; Review 3 (Nov 2023) describes leak created during installation with no resolution offered.
• PRICING CONCERN: Both negative reviews mention pricing issues—one customer felt pressured into unnecessary upsell ($400 toilet replacement), another felt overcharged for softener/RO system with no willingness to address damage caused.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Review 1 explicitly states contractor hung up on customer during complaint call. Review 3 notes 'zero desire for follow through' despite customer willingness to pay.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Review 2 (May 2024) praises same-day service and 'superior service,' but Reviews 1 and 3 describe poor execution and abandonment. This suggests highly variable performance depending on technician or job type.
• RECENCY: Most recent review (Aug 2024) is the most negative, suggesting potential deterioration in service standards.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting evidence. However, the pattern of incomplete work and poor follow-through documented in 2 of 3 reviews is a serious red flag that warrants conservative scoring. The score reflects genuine concerns about project completion and customer service reliability, though more recent data would strengthen confidence.

Expert Services exhibits significant inconsistency across all dimensions, with a concerning pattern of decline over time. While some customers report professional, timely service and quality workmanship (particularly in earlier reviews from 2005-2013), the majority of recent and mid-period reviews document serious issues: chronic non-responsiveness, missed appointments, incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, and aggressive pricing practices. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension, with repeated complaints of extreme markups (parts marked up 8-16x retail cost), hidden charges, and refusal to negotiate or provide discounts. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, failed repairs, and lack of accountability. Professionalism scores reflect mixed technician behavior—some courteous and punctual, others rude and dismissive—alongside systemic communication failures and unresolved billing disputes.

• CRITICAL: Strong evidence of business decline. Early reviews (2005-2007) are predominantly positive (5-star); reviews from 2007 onward show dramatic deterioration, suggesting ownership/management change or operational collapse.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews document extreme parts markups (e.g., $12 part charged at $100; $55 part charged at $129; $280 control board for $100 part). This is not isolated—it is systematic.
• UNRESOLVED BILLING DISPUTES: Review from 2011 documents $11,367.45 duplicate invoice that company refused to refund despite repeated appeals. Review from 2018 documents unauthorized recurring charges after customer moved, with promised refunds never issued. Review from 2007 documents warranty disputes and credit card chargebacks.
• REPEATED INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: Multiple reviews (2014 washing machine repair required 5 visits; 2007 toilet repair failed and had to be redone by competitor; 2007 heater repair required 3 visits with warranty disputes) indicate systemic inability to diagnose and complete work correctly.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Chronic pattern of unanswered calls, voicemail ignored, no-shows, late arrivals without notification, and refusal to return calls post-payment. This appears across multiple reviews spanning 2007-2018.
• ACCOUNTABILITY AVOIDANCE: Multiple reviews document technicians blaming customers for problems, refusing to accept responsibility for damage (e.g., 2014 dryer vent piping damage blamed on birds), and company refusing to negotiate or offer goodwill adjustments.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2007-2018 period. Most recent reviews (2018) are extremely negative. Oldest positive reviews (2005-2006) are now 17+ years old and may not reflect current operations.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Two reviews (2016-01-27 and 2015-02-12) are marked 'unknown' or contain generic praise with no specifics and no dates, suggesting possible fake positive reviews inserted to offset negative feedback.

This WW Score of 48.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 33 substantive reviews with consistent, detailed evidence across all dimensions. The pattern of decline from 2005-2018, combined with documented billing fraud, repeated incomplete repairs, and systematic pricing abuse, indicates serious and ongoing operational problems. This company should be approached with extreme caution.

Stellar Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer experience. Negative reviews (3 of 6) consistently cite lack of thoroughness, incomplete diagnostics, and apparent reluctance to perform warranty work—suggesting systemic issues with service quality and follow-through. Positive reviews (3 of 6) praise owner Grant's responsiveness and problem-solving in emergency situations, but these do not offset the pattern of incomplete work and poor diagnostic practices. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of minimal effort and quick departures without resolution. Project completion is particularly weak, with multiple customers reporting unresolved issues and the need for second opinions. The company appears to perform better on pricing transparency but this is mentioned in only 2 reviews.

• POLARIZED REVIEWS: Exactly 50% one-star vs. 50% five-star with no middle ground suggests either highly inconsistent service quality or potential selection bias in review sources.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Three separate reviews explicitly mention lack of thoroughness, incomplete diagnostics, or abandonment of work—this is a critical red flag for project completion reliability.
• WARRANTY WORK CONCERNS: Multiple reviews allege the company deliberately minimizes work on home warranty claims to avoid coverage—if accurate, this indicates unethical business practices.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment. Recommend collecting more recent data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from November 2023 to September 2024 (within 12 months), so recency bias is minimal.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (6 reviews) and extreme polarization. The consistent pattern of incomplete diagnostics and warranty-related complaints in negative reviews suggests real service quality issues, but the positive experiences with owner Grant indicate inconsistent execution. Do not rely on this score alone for contractor selection—request references and clarify warranty work policies before engaging.