Find Nearby Plumbers In West Valley City, Utah

Silver Basin Construction demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. All three reviews explicitly praise professionalism (integrity, attention to detail, responsiveness, communication), project completion (on-time delivery, schedule adherence, follow-through on change orders), and technical experience (quality workmanship, problem-solving). Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as fair and transparent with no hidden charges. The contractor's licensed status and ability to handle unforeseen issues adds credibility. However, the sample size of only 3 reviews limits confidence; a larger dataset would strengthen reliability.

• Small sample size (n=3) — all reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which may not represent the full customer experience spectrum
• All reviews are from 2023–2024, providing good recency, but the uniformly positive tone without any mention of minor issues or trade-offs is atypical and warrants caution
• No negative or mixed reviews present to validate balance; recommend collecting additional feedback before making high-stakes decisions

This score should be treated as preliminary and directionally positive but not definitive; the unanimous 5-star rating across only 3 reviews suggests either genuinely excellent service or a non-representative sample, and additional independent reviews are strongly recommended before relying heavily on this assessment.

Eric demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. All three reviews explicitly praise his professionalism, including responsiveness (same-day service on a holiday), communication (keeping customers informed), and punctuality. Pricing is consistently highlighted as fair and transparent with no hidden charges or surprises. Project completion is evidenced by quick problem-solving and work delivered as promised. Technical expertise is mentioned in two reviews, with customers noting his knowledge and ability to handle unfamiliar equipment. The WW Score of 88.3 reflects solid, reliable service with high customer satisfaction.

• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language, which is typical of satisfied customers but limits ability to identify weaknesses or areas for improvement
• Review dates span 2016–2018 (6+ years old); no recent reviews provided to assess current service quality or any changes in business practices
• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical confidence; recommend collecting additional recent reviews for more robust scoring

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of reviews; while the data strongly suggests quality service, a minimum of 5–8 recent reviews would be needed to establish high confidence in this assessment.

Mark and Mangone Plumbing demonstrate strong performance across all dimensions based on available reviews. Professionalism is evidenced by punctuality (on-time arrivals, rapid emergency response) and trustworthiness. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and a fraction of competitors' costs. Project completion is solid with problems resolved efficiently and completely. Experience is supported by multi-generational family business history and quality workmanship. However, all scores are based on a small sample of highly positive reviews with limited critical detail.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or balanced perspectives
• Three of four reviews are older than 12 months (2017–2018); only one review from 2024 provides recent data
• Reviews lack specific technical details about complex plumbing work; praise is largely generic and relationship-focused
• Potential selection bias: only satisfied customers appear to have left reviews; no dissatisfied customers represented
• Review language shows some repetitive themes (reliability, fairness, trust) but not identical phrasing, so fake review risk is low but cannot be fully ruled out

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (4 reviews), absence of any critical feedback, and recency concerns (75% of reviews are 6+ years old). The score reflects strong performance among those who reviewed, but cannot be considered statistically robust or representative of current service quality without additional recent data.

RPM Plumbing, primarily represented by Joe, receives consistently strong praise across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. Multiple reviewers explicitly highlight responsiveness, communication, and a professional demeanor, driving a high confidence professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs finished thoroughly, follow-through on callbacks, and going above and beyond the original scope. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews as reasonable and within budget, though the limited mention count keeps confidence at MODERATE for that dimension. Experience scores are supported by references to complex jobs — including a full home re-pipe, septic line replacement, and tankless water heater installation — handled with skill and problem-solving ability.

• One review (dated 2024-06-19) appears to be a scraped Google search results page rather than a clean review text. It contains search engine UI elements and unrelated business listings. The embedded review content about Joe and the tankless water heater was extracted and scored, but the raw data quality is poor.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While individual reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the complete absence of any critical feedback across 9 reviews warrants mild caution.
• Three reviews are older than 12 months (2020, 2022 x2, 2023), with the 2020 review being over 4 years old. The 2020 re-pipe review references a different crew entirely (Jared, Ian, Jay, Mike, Doug) with no mention of Joe, which may indicate a different business era or location. This review was scored but weighted conservatively.
• The 2020 review referencing a full crew by name with no mention of Joe or Anthony — the names consistent across all other reviews — raises a minor flag about whether this review belongs to the same business entity being evaluated.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for recent work quality, supported by 6 reviews from 2022 onward with specific, credible details, though the all-5-star pattern and one anomalous 2020 review introduce minor uncertainty.

The Plumber Guy demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, knowledge, and courteous behavior. Project completion is generally reliable with most jobs finished on schedule and to customer satisfaction. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about overcharging, inflated quotes, and unfair labor rates that substantially undermine overall satisfaction. Recent reviews (past 12 months) show predominantly positive ratings, but historical reviews reveal serious concerns including alleged theft, poor follow-up on callbacks, and missed appointments that reduce confidence in consistency.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical reviews appear across different dates (e.g., 'The Plumber Guy provides speedy repairs and excellent customer service. We are pleased with the work Daniel did for us.' appears 3 times; 'Ian grey had a great work ethic...' appears 3 times; 'Ian grey was great in work ethic...' appears 3 times; 'They were great getting someone to fix our problem...' appears 3 times; 'Dalton was very nice and knowledgeable...' appears 3 times; 'Bryan was excellent and timely...' appears 3 times). This repetitive phrasing across reviews dated 2025-06-09, 2025-06-07, and 2025-06-06 suggests potential review manipulation or bot-generated content. Confidence in recent positive reviews reduced accordingly.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 18 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, inflated quotes, or unfair pricing. Examples include: $2,500 higher than competitors, $2,000+ for water heater installation, $665 for garbage disposal (parts marked up 300%+), $1,600 for water heater install with refusal to itemize, $412 for simple water heater connections, $800 after-hours emergency charge. Pattern suggests systematic overpricing.
• SERIOUS SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews document critical failures including alleged employee theft (credit card theft, check theft during service call in 2019), missed appointments with inadequate notification, ghosting on follow-up work, and failure to honor callbacks. These incidents, while older, indicate systemic issues with vetting and accountability.
• INCONSISTENT FOLLOW-UP: Several reviews mention lack of callback follow-through, delayed responses to scheduling requests, and failure to complete multi-phase projects as promised.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2025 (past 30 days) and show suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings with repetitive language. Older reviews (2017-2023) contain more critical feedback and specific complaints. Recent positive surge may not reflect true current performance.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to detected fake review patterns in recent submissions that artificially inflate professionalism and experience scores. While technician skill and punctuality appear genuinely strong based on consistent praise across time periods, the pricing dimension is reliably problematic with substantial documented evidence of overcharging. Historical reviews reveal serious service failures (theft, missed appointments, ghosting) that are not reflected in recent reviews, suggesting either genuine improvement or review suppression. Recommend weighting older, detailed reviews more heavily than recent generic 5-star submissions when making service decisions.

Curtis Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Anthony, Matt, Joe, Jaime, and Chris — for punctuality, professionalism, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing missed appointments, no-shows, lack of follow-up communication, and dismissive responses from management when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers report fair or even below-expectation costs, a notable cluster of negative reviews describes significant markups on parts (3-4x retail), undisclosed travel fees, billing for time not worked, and estimates that were promised but never delivered. Project completion is generally solid — most jobs described are finished and customers return repeatedly — but there are credible accounts of unresolved issues (septic problem recurring after payment, dishwasher left non-functional, pipe installed below code) that prevent a higher score. Experience scores highest among the dimensions, with many reviewers specifically noting technical skill, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship across complex jobs.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A high concentration of reviews from June 2025 (approximately 14 reviews within a 9-day window) feature near-identical structure — short praise, named technician (predominantly 'Jaime'/'Jamie' and 'Conner/Connor'), and no specific job details. Several are suspiciously brief (e.g., 'Jaime and Connor were fantastic!', 'great work Devon and Scott', 'Jaime and Conner did a great job keep it up'). One review (June 3, 2025) describes meeting a technician at a gas station handing out brochures — this is atypical and may represent a solicited or incentivized review rather than a genuine service experience.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024-2025, while a disproportionate share of negative reviews span 2011-2021. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but it may also reflect review solicitation practices skewing recent scores upward.
• BILLING AND TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years (2011, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023) describe undisclosed fees, parts marked up 3-4x retail, billing for hours not worked, and estimates charged but never delivered. This is a consistent pattern across unrelated reviewers and time periods, indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 5 separate reviews describe the company failing to send promised estimates, failing to return calls or emails, or failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice. One reviewer documented 4-5 unanswered follow-up contacts. This pattern meaningfully impacts the professionalism score.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSE CONCERNS: Two reviews describe the owner or office manager responding to complaints in a dismissive or retaliatory manner, including one instance where a refund was reportedly rescinded after a negative review was posted. This is a significant integrity flag.
• 9 reviews contained no text (blank body with only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: One negative review references Tucson, AZ and another references Oracle/Rancho Vistoso (also Arizona), while the majority of reviews reference Tampa Bay/Riverview, FL. This may indicate the business has operated in multiple locations or that some reviews are misattributed, which could affect score reliability.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume terms, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible fake review cluster in June 2025, a consistent multi-year pattern of billing and communication complaints from independent reviewers, and evidence of management responses that raise integrity concerns — the true score for a new customer's experience may be lower than the calculated 74.2.