Find Nearby Plumbers In South Jordan, Utah

SOS Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism and technical expertise. The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous service, with many customers praising specific technicians like Paul, Greg, and Mike. Project completion is generally reliable, though some historical issues with incomplete diagnostics and miscommunications exist. Pricing is perceived as fair to reasonable by most customers, though some find rates higher than competitors. The primary concerns are isolated incidents of poor communication (water heater installation without clear consent, booties dispute) and occasional service quality gaps in drain cleaning and diagnostics.

• Multiple reviews with minimal or generic text ('unknown', '.', blank) from 2014-2016 period (approximately 20 reviews) suggest potential data quality issues or placeholder entries; these were excluded from scoring but inflate total_reviews_analyzed count
• Significant recency bias: approximately 40% of substantive reviews are from 2024-2025, while older reviews (2010-2016) comprise 35% of dataset; company performance may have evolved
• Three serious negative incidents documented: (1) water heater installed without explicit customer authorization (2018, rating 2.0); (2) booties dispute resulting in service refusal (2023, rating 1.0); (3) inadequate drain cleaning requiring Roto-Rooter follow-up (2018, rating 1.0). These suggest occasional lapses in customer communication and service quality
• Isolated complaints about diagnostic accuracy: one customer charged $120 for inconclusive water heater inspection (2017); another reported incomplete sewer line cleaning (2018)
• One off-topic negative review about property management/construction site conduct (2024, rating 1.0) appears unrelated to plumbing services and was excluded from scoring
• Positive reviews show consistent mention of specific technicians (Paul, Greg, Mike, Steve, Lance, Ross) suggesting quality may be technician-dependent rather than company-wide
• No fake review pattern detected; reviews show genuine variation in detail, specificity, and concerns

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (48-68 mentions each) and consistent patterns across recent reviews. However, the score reflects a company with strong baseline performance occasionally disrupted by communication failures and service gaps; customers should expect generally professional, punctual service but should clearly communicate expectations upfront to avoid misunderstandings.

Anytime Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning roughly 2006 to 2025, with professionalism and experience being the most consistently praised dimensions. The vast majority of reviewers highlight prompt response times, courteous technicians, clear communication, and technically competent work — with named technicians like Amer, Jerry, Miguel, Sam, Brian, Tom, and Victor repeatedly earning individual praise. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 20 out of 231) reveal recurring concerns that meaningfully suppress scores: pricing complaints appear in multiple reviews citing overcharging, upselling, and bills that felt disproportionate to the work performed; project completion is dinged by several credible accounts of abandoned jobs, no-call/no-shows, unresolved callbacks, and at least two serious allegations of incomplete or damaging work left unaddressed. Responsiveness failures — including multiple reviews citing no return calls, sometimes over days or weeks — are a notable pattern that contradicts the company's 'Anytime' branding and pulls the professionalism score below what the majority-positive reviews would otherwise support. Pricing receives the lowest score due to a consistent thread of customers feeling overcharged or upsold, even among otherwise satisfied reviewers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review from 'Jerry came to take care of an old and leaky shower cartridge...' (Rating 5.0) appears verbatim on both 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30. Similarly, 'The plumber arrived quickly, explained everything clearly...' (Rating 5.0) appears verbatim on both 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30. These are likely duplicate submissions and were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2020-06-07 (approximately 10 reviews) share suspiciously similar generic phrasing ('Amer and his team', 'Amer and crew', 'Amer and his guys') with no specific job details, all rated 5 stars. These may be solicited or padded reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are older than 3 years. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued strong positive sentiment but also include fresh negative reviews about responsiveness and pricing, suggesting the pattern of mixed performance is ongoing rather than historical.
• NO-CALLBACK PATTERN: At least 7 distinct reviews across multiple years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2023) explicitly cite failure to return calls or follow up on appointments. This is a recurring operational weakness.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention feeling upsold or pressured into unnecessary additional services, which is a meaningful signal for the pricing dimension.
• SERIOUS UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: At least two reviews describe significant property damage or failed repairs (hole left in bathroom wall, garbage disposal knockout plug not removed causing floor damage) with no apparent resolution from the company. One review describes a plumber allegedly staging a clog. These are serious credibility concerns even if they represent a minority of reviews.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a rating). These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE NOTE: Reviews appear to reference multiple service areas including Santa Cruz CA, New Jersey, Virginia, and North Dakota, suggesting this profile may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses operating under similar names. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review dataset (231 reviews) with HIGH statistical confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a cluster of suspected padded reviews, a persistent no-callback pattern across many years, and several serious unresolved complaints about workmanship and billing — the true score for an individual customer's experience may vary significantly depending on which technician is assigned and the nature of the job.

Remarkable Rooter has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise Frank and his team for honesty, fair pricing, and technical skill — with multiple reviewers citing savings of thousands of dollars compared to competitor quotes. Responsiveness and promptness are frequently highlighted positives across many reviews spanning over a decade. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews: one describing a botched garbage disposal install, a subsequent flood, a promised refund that was never honored, and the owner hanging up on the customer; another describing sewer waste left on a customer's lawn without notice; a billing dispute where an invoice with added interest arrived two years late with no prior communication; and a separate incident where a company vehicle was parked illegally and the driver was verbally abusive to a bystander. These are not minor complaints — they reflect real failures in accountability, follow-through, and conduct. The review base spans 2012–2024, meaning many high-praise reviews are quite old and may not reflect current service quality; only a handful of reviews are from the past 12–24 months, and two of the three most recent reviews are negative or mixed.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2012–2020. Only 4 reviews are from 2022 or later, and 2 of those 4 are negative or mixed (1-star and 2-star). Recent trend is concerning.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENT — PROFESSIONALISM: A 1-star review (2017) describes a botched garbage disposal installation causing a kitchen flood, a promised refund that was never delivered, and the owner hanging up on the customer when confronted. This is a significant accountability failure.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENT — PROJECT COMPLETION: A 2-star review (2022) describes sewer waste being left on a customer's lawn without notification, causing a pet to become ill. This reflects a failure in job site cleanup and customer communication.
• BILLING MALPRACTICE FLAG: A 2-star review (2023) describes an invoice being sent two years after work was completed, with interest added, and no prior invoice ever having been sent. This is a serious business practice concern.
• CONDUCT INCIDENT: A 1-star review (2024) describes a company vehicle parked illegally in a fire lane and in front of a garage, and the driver being verbally abusive ('touched in the head') to a bystander who reported it. While not a service review, it reflects on company culture and professionalism.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW POOL FRAGMENTATION: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Frank, Mark, John, David, Chris), suggesting this may be a family operation or franchise with variable service quality depending on who performs the work.
• PHONE NUMBER SOLICITATION: Two reviews (2022, 2023) include the owner's personal cell phone number, which may suggest the business is prompting customers to post this information — a minor flag for review authenticity, though not conclusive.
• NO CONFIRMED FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While most positive reviews are enthusiastic, they contain specific details, named technicians, and varied scenarios. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but the volume of older 5-star reviews with no negatives warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews with sufficient detail across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in the scoring math, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that recent reviews skew negative, at least three credible serious complaints involve accountability failures, and the strongest positive reviews are largely from 2012–2020.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with the overwhelming majority of reviews praising technicians as courteous, prompt, and communicative — including frequent emergency and after-hours responsiveness. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers noting technicians diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and knowledgeably, though a handful of negative reviews describe operator error, misdiagnosis, and work that had to be redone. Project completion is solid but meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: a drain snake left stuck in a pipe at the customer's expense, a $2,200 excavation job that failed to fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete, and a toilet that began leaking again within seven months with only a 30-day warranty honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describing quotes as grossly inflated, markups described as 4x fair market value, and one reviewer documenting a $3,200 water heater quote; these are partially offset by reviewers who found pricing fair or reasonable, but the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints is notable.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — HIGH: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-09 show highly repetitive patterns: extremely short text (e.g., 'Joe was great!', 'Sam was here he did great!', 'Ben L', 'Cullen great work', 'He's a legend.'), near-identical phrasing across multiple reviews, and many with zero specifics about the work performed. Several pairs of reviews appear to reference the same technician on the same date with suspiciously similar wording. These reviews inflate the review count significantly and should be treated with low confidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Ryan for honesty and integrity ('PLUMBERS with HONESTY & INTEGRITY...') appears twice with identical text, dated 2022-08-04, submitted under what appear to be two separate entries.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND RECURRING: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years (2018–2024) independently describe being quoted prices 2x–4x above market rate, being charged for unnecessary work, or feeling pressured into expensive services. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly — a drain snake left stuck in a customer's pipe requiring jackhammering at customer expense, a $2,200 excavation that did not fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete with dispatch hanging up on the customer, and a toilet repair that failed within 7 months covered by only a 30-day warranty.
• COMMISSION DECEPTION COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly states they were told technicians do not work on commission, then discovered job postings showing commission-based pay, and requested a refund for the $99 visit fee. This raises a trust and transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), which is positive for recency weighting. However, the high concentration of very short, generic 5-star reviews in this recent period raises the fake review concern noted above. Older reviews (2018–2022) tend to be more detailed and carry higher individual credibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one rated 4.0, one rated 5.0) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized short-form reviews inflating the count, a recurring and independently corroborated pattern of pricing complaints, and multiple documented workmanship failures — the true score for an unbiased customer pool may be meaningfully lower than 76.4.

Big John's Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on decades of reviews, with consistent praise for fair pricing, responsiveness, and friendly service. Professionalism scores well in the majority of reviews but is meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative accounts: one reviewer described an unprofessional emoji-only response to an emergency, another reported a careless technician who chipped a bathtub and left a mess, and a third described poor communication and an incomplete job. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension — while most jobs are described as finished well, there are notable exceptions including one review describing an incomplete reroute left through a linen closet, a negative review alleging a bait-and-switch lien tactic, and a 2023 review where crew members allegedly misdiagnosed a simple washer fix as a costly wall tear-out. Pricing is generally praised as fair and competitive, though one reviewer noted prices have risen over time and one described a $250 quote for $24 in parts. Experience scores reflect strong technical ability in most cases but is tempered by reviews citing inexperienced crew members and substandard work on larger jobs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('I absolutely cannot say enough about this company! They came out almost immediately...') were posted 7 days apart (2024-11-04 and 2024-11-11) — this is likely a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• 9 reviews contain no text at all (blank body, rating only) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews are very old (2006–2014) and may not reflect current service quality. The business appears to have changed crew composition over time, with multiple reviews noting inconsistency between jobs done by Big John personally versus crew members.
• One review (1-star, 2021) alleges a license suspension in Utah and a bait-and-switch lien tactic on a new home build — this is a serious allegation but could not be corroborated within the review set. It was weighted in project completion and experience scoring.
• A pattern of generic short praise reviews (e.g., 'Very professional', 'Rob was great!', 'Great fast service reasonably priced') with no specifics was noted — these were treated as low-information and given minimal weight in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews span 2018–2025. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are generally positive but the 2023 negative pricing/diagnosis review is recent and credible.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should note meaningful credible negative reviews regarding crew inconsistency, incomplete work, and at least one serious pricing/diagnosis concern that prevent a higher score.

This contractor demonstrates solid performance across all measured dimensions based on limited but consistently positive feedback. Professionalism and pricing both receive moderate confidence scores (85 and 80 respectively) with 3 mentions each, reflecting punctuality, honesty, and fair pricing. Project completion and experience are supported by only 2 mentions each, limiting confidence in those scores despite positive language. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects reliable but not exceptional performance, constrained by the small sample size and age of reviews.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are extremely old (2006–2018), with the most recent being 6+ years old. No recent data available to assess current performance or consistency.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Scores are not statistically robust and should be treated as preliminary.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Reviews contain minimal specific detail about work performed. Phrases like 'very good,' 'super guy,' and 'excellent job' lack concrete examples, making it difficult to validate claims.
• INCOMPLETE FEEDBACK: Review 2 mentions an unresolved issue ('I have problem with power lights so I would call them again to fix it'), suggesting potential follow-through concerns, though this is ambiguous.
• NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: Absence of any critical reviews may indicate selection bias or limited review volume rather than perfect performance.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (4 reviews), extreme age of all data (oldest from 2006, newest from 2018), and lack of recent performance information. The score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.