Find Nearby Plumbers In West Jordan, Utah

1st American Plumbing Heating & Air earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — punctuality, communication, honesty, and respectful conduct are mentioned repeatedly across many reviews spanning multiple years. Project completion scores well, with numerous reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or faster than expected, and technicians following through on callbacks and complex multi-trade work. Experience scores are supported by specific accounts of skilled troubleshooting that saved customers significant money, including a notable case where a competitor quoted $13,000 for a repair that cost $288. Pricing is the most nuanced dimension: the majority of reviewers describe fair or below-market pricing, but two credible negative reviews — one citing a $1,100 quote for a simple faucet install and one alleging a bait-and-switch from $2,000 to $5,100 — meaningfully suppress this score. The bait-and-switch allegation in particular is a serious concern that prevents a higher pricing score despite the volume of positive pricing feedback.

• 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great work', 'Excellent service providers.', 'Great service. Thanks for helping us!') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, these add minimal evidentiary value and were weighted accordingly.
• One review (2023-06-07, 1-star) alleges a bait-and-switch pricing scheme — quote of $2,000 raised to $5,100 after payment. This is a serious allegation and is treated as credible given its specificity. It materially impacts the pricing score.
• One review (2021-06-09, 1-star) cites a $1,100 quote for a sink remount and faucet install, compared to $400 from a competitor. This is a second credible pricing complaint and further supports a conservative pricing score.
• The review set spans from 2014 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight as they may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or pricing. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2024–2025, which is a positive recency signal.
• All ratings are either 5.0 or 1.0 with no middle-ground scores, which is a mild flag. However, the negative reviews are specific and credible, and the positive reviews contain enough named technicians and situational detail to suggest they are largely genuine.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with strong recency, named technicians, and specific job details, making it moderately reliable — however, two credible pricing complaints and five content-free reviews introduce enough uncertainty that the pricing dimension and overall score should be interpreted with some caution.

Liberty Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by exceptional professionalism (86.5) across hundreds of reviews praising punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians. Project completion scores (81.8) are solid, though tempered by multiple reports of incomplete work, delayed callbacks, and follow-up issues. Experience ratings (84.1) reflect consistent technical competence and problem-solving ability. Pricing (76.2) emerges as the weakest dimension, with recurring complaints about unexpected charges, price gouging, and lack of transparency despite many positive comments about fair rates. The company shows significant variability in service quality and follow-through.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2016-06-28, 2017-10-30, 2022-03-17, 2022-08-03) document substantial overcharges, price gouging, and lack of transparency. Customers report being quoted one price then charged significantly more, or charged for parts at 5-7x retail cost. This pattern suggests inconsistent pricing practices.
• PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUES: Several reviews (2023-08-14, 2023-08-12, 2023-10-03, 2023-10-02, 2020-01-14) report incomplete work, abandoned projects, failure to return for callbacks, and lack of follow-through. One customer waited 3+ months for faucet installation with no resolution.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reports (2022-07-06, 2022-08-19, 2017-10-03, 2017-10-02, 2019-08-18) of no-shows, missed appointments, failure to return calls, and unprofessional phone interactions with owners.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews show wide variance in technician quality and work outcomes. Some technicians praised extensively; others criticized for incomplete diagnostics, poor installations, or damage (2016-11-16 chimney liner damage, 2016-05-16 worsened drain problem).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews from 2021-2025 show nearly identical phrasing ('on time, professional, friendly, clean, efficient') with minimal specific details. While not conclusive, this warrants caution in weighting recent reviews.
• DEPOSIT/PAYMENT PRACTICES: Review from 2022-08-03 documents aggressive deposit collection ($59 driver fee kept regardless), demands for 20% down payment upfront, and refusal to accept standard payment methods. Raises consumer protection concerns.
• PERMIT/COMPLIANCE ISSUES: Review from 2023-02-07 reports customer charged for permit that was never pulled or inspected, with no follow-up from company despite multiple contact attempts.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by extensive data, the pricing dimension is significantly undermined by documented overcharge patterns, and project completion reliability is compromised by multiple reports of abandoned work and failed callbacks. The company appears capable of excellent service but demonstrates inconsistent follow-through and pricing transparency that creates material risk for customers. Recent reviews show potential fake review clustering that may inflate current ratings.

Jeff's Drains demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in project completion (84.2) and professionalism (86.5). The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, and technical competence, with hundreds of reviews praising on-time arrivals, quick problem resolution, and knowledgeable technicians. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable (79.8), though a small subset of reviews express concerns about invoice clarity or perceived high costs. The primary weakness is a pattern of serious follow-through failures on refunds and warranty obligations, documented in multiple 1-star reviews spanning 2016-2025, which significantly impacts the overall score despite the overwhelming majority of positive feedback.

• CRITICAL: Multiple credible 1-star reviews (at least 4 distinct cases from 2016-2025) document serious failures in follow-through on refunds and warranty obligations. One review details a 10-month failure to refund overpayment; another describes broken warranty promises after damage caused during service; a third documents repeated no-shows despite scheduled appointments. These are not isolated incidents but a pattern suggesting systemic issues with accountability and customer service recovery.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 40-50 reviews consist of minimal text (single words like 'Great', '.', '1', 'N/a', or ellipses '.....................') with 5.0 ratings. These appear to be placeholder or auto-generated reviews with no substantive content. While not necessarily fraudulent, they inflate the review count and reduce data quality. Confidence in overall score reduced slightly due to this noise.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Significant number of near-identical or exact duplicate reviews detected (estimated 80-100 pairs), suggesting either platform errors or intentional duplication. This artificially inflates mention counts and should be weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2024-2025) maintain high ratings, the serious follow-through failures documented in 2023 and earlier suggest ongoing systemic issues that may not be fully resolved. Recent positive reviews do not address the refund/warranty problems.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Reviews document variability in technician professionalism and cleanliness standards. One 2023 review notes technician was 'not as careful about keeping the area clean'; another 2020 review praised exceptional cleanliness. This suggests inconsistent quality control across team members.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing typical drain-cleaning service quality and responsiveness, supported by 568 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical vulnerability: documented patterns of failure to honor refunds and warranty obligations spanning multiple years. Prospective customers should weight the strong operational performance (punctuality, technical skill, fair pricing) against documented risks of unresolved disputes and poor follow-through on financial commitments. The score reflects average experience but does not adequately capture downside risk for customers who encounter problems requiring refunds or warranty service.

Platinum Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism and project completion, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clean work areas, and jobs finished thoroughly and on time. Experience scores are similarly high, with multiple reviewers citing specific technical competence — diagnosing complex issues quickly, performing repiping, slab leak repairs, water heater replacements, and water softener installations with skill. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call prices fair or reasonable, there are four credible 1-star complaints explicitly citing overcharging, hidden fees, inconsistent quoting, and a technician billing for time spent sitting in a truck — these meaningfully drag the pricing score down. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuinely strong service delivery but a real and recurring pattern of pricing transparency issues that prospective customers should be aware of.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'For an industry that has many not-so-savory characters, Jim is top notch...' appears twice with different dates (2012-06-12 and 2011-08-22). This is likely a duplicate entry and was counted only once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The flooded garage / water main leak review ('We came home from an out-of-town family visit...') appears twice with different dates (2020-06-10 and 2019-07-24). Counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The Nick/cast iron pipe review ('Platinum was referred to us by our friends...') appears twice with dates 2020-06-10 and 2020-02-03. Counted only once.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — CREDIBLE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Four separate 1-star or low-star reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inconsistent quotes, undisclosed fees, or billing for non-work time. This is a statistically meaningful signal across the review set and is reflected in the reduced pricing score.
• FIRST REVIEW CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The review dated 2025-03-11 ('I've had the privilege of working with Jim and platinum...') is written from the perspective of a fellow contractor who meets with Jim regularly, not a typical customer. This reads as a professional peer endorsement rather than a genuine customer experience and was weighted minimally.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated prior to 2020, meaning they are more than 5 years old. The score is influenced by older reviews. Recent reviews (2023–2025) remain largely positive but are fewer in number.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use very similar language ('on time,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') with limited specifics. While not conclusive of fake reviews, it slightly reduces confidence in the upper end of professionalism scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (82 reviews with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH overall confidence in the directional accuracy of the score — however, prospective customers should specifically scrutinize pricing transparency before engaging, as credible overcharging complaints represent a consistent and recurring concern across multiple independent reviewers.

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.

Electric Rooter demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable service, with many customers praising punctuality, professionalism, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by inconsistent pricing practices, with multiple complaints about high charges for simple jobs and lack of transparent cost justification. Project completion is reliable for straightforward jobs but shows concerning gaps in diagnostic accuracy and follow-through on complex issues (e.g., missed root ball recommendation leading to basement flooding, incomplete scoping in duplex scenario). Communication and responsiveness issues appear in several reviews, particularly regarding callbacks and office coordination. The company's strength lies in technical skill and field professionalism, but pricing transparency and diagnostic thoroughness are material weaknesses.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2015, 2014, 2015, 2015) report significantly higher charges than competitors for similar work, with some customers citing 2-3x markup. Lack of itemized billing in at least one case ($800 charge with unsubstantiated parts list).
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Two serious incidents where inadequate initial assessment led to customer damage: (1) 2017 review—technicians missed root balls during sewer scope, customer told 'wait a year,' resulted in basement flooding weeks later; (2) 2013 review—incomplete scoping of duplex system, customer charged 3 times for same job due to initial oversight.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews cite poor callback responsiveness (2016: 'too busy to call back,' 2 weeks delay; 2015: refused to provide service details and told customer not to call again; 2011: no courtesy call before arrival despite promise).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One customer reported second service (1.5 years later) was less effective than first service (2012 review, 3-star rating).
• CLEANUP/PROPERTY DAMAGE: Two reviews describe inadequate containment during work—one customer's basement flooded with drain sludge, carpet and cabinet damaged, no response to inquiry (2016); another noted late arrival despite promise (2013).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2013-2016 cluster). Only 6 reviews from 2020 onward; most recent positive reviews are from 2024 but limited in detail. Older negative reviews suggest systemic issues that may or may not persist.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in field execution, the frequency and severity of pricing complaints, diagnostic failures, and communication breakdowns across a 12-year review span indicate structural business issues that materially undermine trustworthiness. The recent positive reviews (2024) lack sufficient detail to confirm whether these problems have been resolved. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes and verify diagnostic findings before proceeding.