Find Nearby Plumbers In Salt Lake City, Utah

All five reviews consistently praise Nick's professionalism, including punctuality (with one noted exception of arriving late), clear communication, and courteous demeanor. His technical expertise with high-end fixtures and specialty systems like reverse osmosis filters is highlighted across multiple reviews, supporting a strong experience score. Pricing is described as reasonable and transparent in three reviews, earning a solid but moderately confident pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs finished correctly the first time, thorough follow-through, and proactive checks on other home systems. However, all reviews are over 10 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this report for assessing current performance.

• ALL 5 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 10 YEARS (2010–2013). This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current quality, pricing, or availability of this contractor.
• With only 5 reviews spanning 3 years and all being 5-star ratings, the sample size is very small. Caution is advised when relying on this score.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism is present across any review, which is statistically unusual. While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution regarding review authenticity.
• One reviewer noted Nick arrived later than stated, which is a minor professionalism flag that was factored into the professionalism score.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW confidence due to the extremely small and entirely outdated review set — all reviews are from 2010 to 2013 — making it unreliable as a current indicator of contractor performance.

All four reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and consistently praise PlumbRight's professionalism and technical knowledge, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out Sharadin's expertise and willingness to educate clients. Pricing transparency is mentioned in two reviews, with one reviewer explicitly confirming the final cost matched the quoted amount and another noting fair rates, supporting a moderately positive pricing score. Project completion signals are limited — only two reviews hint at follow-through and standing by work, so that dimension is scored conservatively. Overall, the pattern is positive but the very small sample size (4 reviews) significantly limits the reliability of any score derived here.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small to calculate a statistically reliable WW Score. Results should be treated as directional only.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback of any kind. While reviews are recent and contain some specific details, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution regarding review balance.
• Two reviews reference the contractor by first name (Sharadin, Jon) — it is unclear if these refer to the same individual, which may indicate inconsistency in the business identity or simply informal naming conventions. No deduction applied but noted.
• No mentions of project completion failures, delays, or callbacks — absence of negative data is NOT treated as evidence of perfect completion. Project completion score is conservatively limited to what is explicitly stated.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review pool of only 4 reviews; a minimum of 10–15 reviews with varied feedback would be needed before this score can be considered a trustworthy representation of PlumbRight's performance.

Two Ton Plumbing (Dan) receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, though the review pool is very small. Professionalism is the strongest signal, with all three reviews noting friendliness, responsiveness, and timely arrival — including a same-day callback with no additional charge. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews, with one explicitly confirming work was completed at the quoted price with no surprises. Project completion is generally positive but slightly tempered by the fact that the second review describes an initial fix that failed, requiring a return visit — though Dan did resolve it promptly and at no extra cost. Experience scores conservatively given only two reviews touch on technical skill, and the review pool is too small to draw firm conclusions about consistent workmanship quality.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low reliability.
• One review dates from 2017 and one from 2022, meaning only one review falls within the past 12 months (May 2024). Recency weighting is limited.
• The second review describes a failed initial repair that required a callback, which is a minor quality flag even though it was resolved satisfactorily.
• Reviews are generally positive and lack critical detail, but phrasing is sufficiently varied and specific to not suggest fake review patterns.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7 years, with just one recent review, making it LOW reliability — more reviews are needed before this score can be considered a trustworthy representation of current service quality.

At Your Service receives generally positive feedback across all four dimensions, with technicians like James, Spencer, Jarom, Steve, and Levi praised for their skill, honesty, and thoroughness. Project completion scores well as jobs were finished satisfactorily in all four reviews, including a same-day furnace installation under time pressure. Professionalism is slightly tempered by one notable complaint about scheduling inaccuracies and long wait windows, suggesting the company may be understaffed relative to demand. Pricing data is sparse — only two reviews touch on value, with one reviewer noting the technician could have taken advantage of their lack of knowledge but chose not to, implying honest and fair pricing. Experience scores are strong, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising technical knowledge and quality of workmanship.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2022, making them over 2 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (May 2024). Recency weighting is limited.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews contain specific names, details, and at least one mixed observation (scheduling issues), reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• Scheduling reliability is a flagged concern: one reviewer explicitly described waiting a full day with multiple inaccurate time windows provided by dispatch.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, three of which are over one year old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor performance.

This contractor shows strong technical knowledge and responsiveness, with positive feedback on professionalism and expertise. However, a critical failure in project completion—caulking over old material without proper prep, resulting in immediate leakage—significantly undermines the overall score. Pricing appears reasonable based on one mention. The extremely limited review sample (only 3 reviews, with the most recent over 1 year old) and the presence of one generic 5-star review with minimal detail reduce confidence substantially. The stark contrast between the 2-star and 5-star ratings suggests inconsistent execution.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed; insufficient volume for reliable scoring
• Most recent review is from August 2023 (over 1 year old); limited recency
• One review (2022-06-22) is generic with no specific details about work performed, raising minor authenticity concerns
• Critical quality failure documented: improper surface preparation leading to immediate failure (caulk leak next day)
• Significant rating variance (2.0 vs 5.0) suggests inconsistent workmanship or service quality

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and limited recency; the documented project completion failure is a serious concern that warrants direct verification before hiring.

B&E Rooter has a mixed but generally positive track record across a small review set spanning 2012 to 2022. Three of five reviews praise responsiveness, punctuality, and thoroughness, including one notable case where B&E saved a customer over $7,800 compared to a competitor's quote. However, one detailed 1-star review raises serious concerns: the crew arrived an hour late, failed to complete the job, and charged significantly above-market rates for minimal work, including a $155 toilet removal and a $250 camera inspection the reviewer found useless. This negative review is specific, credible, and heavily impacts pricing and project completion scores. The most recent review (2022) is positive, but the bulk of the data is from 2012–2014, limiting confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Four of five reviews are more than 5 years old (2012–2019). Only one review is from the past 3 years (2022). Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• CREDIBILITY NOTE: The 1-star review (2012) is highly detailed and specific — itemized charges, named competitor, described exact failure mode — lending it strong credibility and significant weight despite being a single negative review.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews total. All dimension scores carry LIMITED-to-MODERATE confidence and should not be treated as definitive.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and date. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns identified.

This WW Score should be treated as a rough directional indicator only — the small review count, wide date range, and one highly credible negative review mean the score carries moderate-to-low reliability for assessing current contractor quality.