Find Nearby Plumbers In Casper, Wyoming

CK Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns spanning over a decade, including bait-and-switch tactics, undisclosed fees, inflated labor charges, and aggressive upselling of maintenance plans. Project completion is generally solid with good follow-through, though some older reviews cite extended timelines and coordination issues. The stark contrast between recent positive reviews (2024-2025) and historical pricing complaints suggests either improved practices or selective review filtering, warranting caution.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews across 2011-2024 document aggressive pricing practices including $40-$89 diagnostic fees, labor overbilling (4.5 hours billed for 2.75 hours worked), bait-and-switch estimates ($40 quote fee + $330 service vs. competitor's $150 total), and pressure to purchase maintenance plans to access 'real' pricing. This pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss.
• TEMPORAL ANOMALY: Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with glowing detail, while historical reviews (2011-2023) contain substantive complaints about pricing, project delays, and quality issues. This shift may indicate improved operations, but could also reflect review platform changes or selective posting.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several 2025 reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('awesome,' 'top-notch,' 'knowledgeable') with minimal specificity. One 2025 review (April 16) is exceptionally detailed and effusive in ways that stand out from typical customer language. Multiple blank/unknown reviews from 2014-2016 period reduce data quality.
• MAJOR PROJECT FAILURE: 2021 review documents month-long project with apprentices, flooding, trash, no oversight, inaccurate estimate, and complete refusal to provide written warranty or remediation. Customer paid for work not matching estimate. This is a severe project completion failure.
• DAMAGE LIABILITY ISSUE: 2024 review documents $10,000+ damage to custom stairs during water heater removal; company refused any compensation, claiming 'par for the course.' Suggests liability/insurance concerns.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Multiple reviews cite different technicians (Robert, Derek, Dan, John, etc.) with varying professionalism levels. Some technicians praised as exceptional; others criticized for arrogance and poor workmanship.
• RECENCY BIAS LIKELY: 95% of reviews from past 12 months are 5-star; 80% of reviews from 2011-2014 contain substantive complaints. This inversion suggests either dramatic improvement or review filtering.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are consistently positive and support a higher score, the company's documented history of aggressive pricing practices, bait-and-switch tactics, and major project failures spanning over a decade creates significant trust concerns. The dramatic shift from complaint-heavy older reviews to glowing recent reviews suggests either genuine operational improvement or selective review visibility. Professionalism and experience scores are reliable (HIGH confidence), but the pricing score is artificially elevated by absence of recent pricing complaints—not evidence of fair pricing. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates, verify pricing in writing before service, and be skeptical of mandatory maintenance plan requirements.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

All Service Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing jobs. However, a meaningful and recurring cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises serious concerns across all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly describe hidden markups on materials, undisclosed labor rates, charges that far exceeded quotes, and a pattern of upselling unnecessary work (e.g., $10k drain liner that did not resolve the issue, $1,100 to install a toilet spacer, $17k for 10 days of work). Project completion is also significantly impacted by credible accounts of abandoned jobs, no-shows, unreturned calls, and work left incomplete for months. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of technicians being rude, dismissive, or unresponsive, and by the owner allegedly operating with a suspended license and without permits on at least one major job. Experience scores are mixed: many reviewers praise skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but others describe incorrect diagnoses, shoddy repairs that failed within weeks, and technicians who appeared inexperienced or untrained.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-09 and 2025-03-10 share nearly identical sentence structures, generic phrasing ('amiable and informed,' 'mess-free,' 'kind and informed'), and suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings with no specific technician names or job details. These appear to be AI-generated or templated reviews and have been weighted down in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 2024-04-08 by a long-term customer ('I have enjoyed the work of All Service Plumbing since 2019...') appears verbatim twice and was counted only once.
• LICENSE SUSPENSION: One detailed 1-star review (2025-03-10) credibly alleges the company performed a $38,000 job without pulling permits and with a suspended contractor license. This is a serious legal and safety flag.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 separate reviews across multiple years describe the company making appointments and then failing to show up or call — a consistent operational failure.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe material markups exceeding 50%, undisclosed labor rate changes, and final bills far exceeding verbal or written quotes. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least two credible reviews describe jobs left unfinished for months (including open trenches in a home after a repipe), with the owner becoming hostile when pressed for completion.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain both strong positive reviews and several serious negative ones. The negative pattern is not improving over time.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 24 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset (285 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible pattern of fake or templated positive reviews, recurring serious complaints about pricing transparency, incomplete work, and at least one allegation of unlicensed work — all of which suggest the true customer experience is more variable and risky than the majority star rating implies.

Apex Plumbing has a large volume of positive reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, and knowledgeable technicians, which drives reasonably strong scores across all four dimensions. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-2 star reviews describes serious issues including substandard workmanship, abandoned or incomplete jobs, warranty refusals, property damage left unaddressed, and overcharging — particularly in connection with the City of Denver lead pipe replacement program. Pricing scores are pulled down by multiple explicit complaints of price gouging, bait-and-switch estimates, and unexpected upcharges. Project completion scores are significantly impacted by reviews describing unfinished work, ghosting after payment, and failure to restore yards, sprinkler systems, and interiors after excavation work. The overall picture is a company capable of excellent service but with a documented pattern of inconsistency that prevents higher scores.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS — CLUSTER 1: A group of 9 reviews all dated 2025-05-10 reference 'Roberts Family Plumbing' technicians named Douglas, Gregory, and Mason in Escondido. These reviews appear on an Apex Plumbing profile, reference a different company by name, mention 'new management' and 'new ownership' repeatedly, use suspiciously similar phrasing, and are all 5-star with no critical detail. These are almost certainly fabricated reviews planted on the wrong profile and have been excluded from scoring.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS — CLUSTER 2: A large batch of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 with identical timestamps and many containing no review text (rating only) are suspicious. While some contain legitimate detail, the identical date clustering across dozens of reviews suggests possible bulk submission or review gating. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to account for this uncertainty.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews from 2024-09-30 and 2024-10-01 describing the same West Tampa job with Joe, Mike, Elliot, John, and Matt appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews from 2022-09-10 praising Kyle and Edwin for the same garbage disposal and water filtration job appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. Only counted once.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROJECT COMPLETION: Multiple reviews describe Apex completing excavation or pipe work and then failing to restore yards, sprinkler systems, driveways, or interiors. Several reviewers report being ghosted after raising these concerns. This is a recurring and credible pattern spanning multiple years.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews explicitly describe Apex refusing to honor stated warranties on completed work, including a 5-year warranty dispute and a 1-year warranty cutoff on a leaking tub installation.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — OVERCHARGING: Multiple reviews describe price increases after initial quotes, upcharges for standard components, and at least one explicit bait-and-switch allegation ($500 estimate escalating to $3,500 demand).
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe failure to call back, missed appointments without notice, rude receptionists, and failure to deliver promised estimates over weeks.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEW DETECTED: One 1-star review dated 2024-10-17 appears to be written by a former employee describing internal company culture and a workplace death. This review does not reflect customer service experience and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to 2025. The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2023-2025 and have been weighted more heavily. Older negative reviews (2012-2016) show some of the same patterns as recent negatives, suggesting persistent systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• 30 reviews contained no text (rating only) and could not be scored on any dimension. These were counted in total_reviews_analyzed but excluded from reviews_with_usable_data.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (277 total) with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible pattern of serious service failures, suspected fake review clusters, and significant score variance between individual technicians — suggesting the customer experience at Apex Plumbing is highly inconsistent depending on which technician and which type of job is involved.

Paloma/Pinnacle Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendly technicians, and solid technical work across a wide range of jobs including re-pipes, gas lines, water heaters, and drain clearing. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures: abandoned projects, unresolved issues after large payments, no-show appointments, unanswered calls for weeks, billing surprises, and work that had to be redone by others. Pricing is generally viewed as competitive and fair by satisfied customers, but at least two reviewers explicitly flagged hidden charges, overbilling, or unauthorized credit card charges. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviewers reporting jobs left unfinished, follow-up quotes never delivered, and owners going silent after payment. The score reflects a contractor capable of excellent work but with documented and recurring reliability and accountability failures.

• Multiple reviews reference two distinct brand names — 'Paloma Plumbing' and 'Pinnacle Plumbing' — suggesting this profile may aggregate reviews for two separate companies or a rebranded entity. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect mixed business identities.
• Several reviews from 2014–2015 describe serious misconduct including unauthorized credit card charges, pipes installed without insulation that continued leaking, and a $3,000 unresolved job. While older, these are substantive and pattern-consistent with more recent complaints.
• At least 5 reviews explicitly describe the contractor failing to follow up on quotes or callbacks over periods of weeks to months — a recurring pattern across different years and reviewers, suggesting a systemic responsiveness problem.
• One review (2024-04-17) states a project was fully paid for and remained incomplete one year later with the owner ghosting the customer — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (2022-10-07) describes plumbers arriving with no pricing discussion, followed by a large surprise bill and a rude billing agent — indicating a transparency and billing process issue.
• One review (2020-01-16) describes a water heater replacement where the estimate was $1,000 but the bill was $2,400, the wrong size heater was installed, the problem was not resolved, and the owner failed to show for a follow-up appointment.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief or contain no specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent service', 'unknown', 'It was great', 'We do great work'). The 'We do great work' review appears to be self-posted by the business. These reviews were discounted in scoring.
• Review dated 2021-05-21 with text 'We do great work' and a 5-star rating is almost certainly a self-review by the business and was excluded from scoring.
• Reviews span from 2004 to 2025 — a 21-year window. Older reviews (pre-2018) were given reduced weight. The majority of negative reviews are distributed across multiple time periods, indicating the issues are not isolated to one era.
• No clear fake review cluster detected beyond the generic/brief reviews noted above, but the volume of suspiciously vague 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight, but the score should be treated with meaningful caution due to recurring and credible negative reviews describing project abandonment, billing misconduct, and chronic non-responsiveness — patterns that suggest the contractor's performance is highly inconsistent depending on job size, technician assigned, and time period.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of politeness, responsiveness, and pleasant demeanor across multiple reviews. However, significant concerns emerge around pricing and project completion. A major 2020 review documents a $11,000 tankless water heater installation that required $2,000 in rework by another company due to sloppy installation, directly contradicting claims of quality workmanship. While some reviews praise fair pricing, this catastrophic failure and the need for external correction substantially undermines confidence. Experience ratings are mixed—some reviews highlight knowledgeable work, but the installation failure and follow-up communication issues suggest inconsistent execution. The WW Score reflects these competing signals with moderate overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: 2020 review documents major installation failure ($11,000 job requiring $2,000 rework) with documented evidence (bills and pictures). This is a severe quality and completion issue that significantly impacts trustworthiness.
• 2013 review indicates poor follow-up communication and lack of callback after parts were ordered—suggests systemic project completion issues.
• Multiple reviews from 2012-2018 are older than 12 months; only 2 reviews from 2020 provide recent data. Recency is limited.
• Three reviews (2015, 2014, 2013) contain minimal or generic text ('.' and 'unknown'), reducing data quality.
• Positive reviews lack specific detail about scope or complexity; negative review is highly detailed with documentation, suggesting asymmetric credibility.
• Possible employee performance variance noted in 2013 review, but this does not excuse lack of owner oversight on major projects.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism appears genuine, the documented $13,000 installation failure in 2020 is a critical red flag that cannot be overlooked; it directly contradicts quality claims and suggests either poor technical execution or inadequate quality control. The score is pulled down appropriately by this evidence, but potential customers should request references for recent major installations and verify workmanship independently.