Find Nearby Plumbers In Boise, Idaho

McDaniel Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks. Professionalism is the standout strength, with 58 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior. Pricing receives strong support from 32 reviews highlighting fair, competitive, and transparent quotes with no hidden charges. Project completion is well-documented across 48 reviews showing reliable follow-through, timely work, and thorough job execution. Experience is validated by 42 reviews emphasizing technical skill, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. The company shows particular strength in same-day or next-day service response and customer communication during jobs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two identical reviews appear on 2024-05-22 (water heater installation with tank vs tankless discussion). One identical review appears twice on 2024-06-09 (the 'really good thing' review about cost-effective solutions). These duplicates suggest possible review manipulation or system errors but do not substantially alter scoring as content is genuine.
• OUTLIER REVIEWS: Three notably negative reviews (1.0 and 3.0 ratings) stand out sharply against the predominantly 5-star pattern. The 2024-11-11 review (3.0) describes poor communication and missed appointment windows—legitimate service failure. The 2020-06-18 review (1.0) describes slow response and quote fees. The 2017-06-11 review (3.0) mentions payment disputes and delayed invoicing. The 2024-02-11 review (1.0) appears to be a car dealership review mistakenly posted here and is disregarded. These negative reviews are factual complaints and appropriately weighted.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews contain only ratings (5.0 or 1.0) with no text content. These are excluded from analysis as they provide no evidence for scoring.
• RECENCY DISTRIBUTION: Majority of reviews (approximately 60%) are from 2021 onwards, with strong recent activity in 2024-2025. Reviews older than 2015 represent approximately 15% of dataset. Recent reviews reinforce the same patterns as older reviews, suggesting consistent service quality over time.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: While the high concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 90% of scoreable reviews) is notable, the reviews contain specific, varied details (different job types, different family members, different time periods, specific problem-solving examples) that suggest genuine customer experiences rather than fabricated praise. Negative reviews are also present and detailed, further supporting authenticity.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 72 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions (32-58 mentions each), all achieving HIGH confidence. The consistency of positive feedback across nearly a decade of reviews, combined with the presence of legitimate negative reviews that were appropriately weighted, indicates this score accurately reflects McDaniel Plumbing's actual service quality. The primary weakness is responsiveness/communication in rare cases, but this is outweighed by overwhelming evidence of professional, skilled, fairly-priced service with strong project completion rates.

All Star Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — dozens of reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, communication, and responsiveness including after-hours and emergency availability. Experience and workmanship are consistently highlighted across a wide range of job types including full repiping, sewer line replacement, water heater installs, and emergency leak repairs. Project completion is generally strong, with most reviewers reporting jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, though two negative reviews specifically cite a failed callback after a new water heater began leaking and a pattern of missed appointments — these meaningfully drag the completion score down. Pricing is viewed favorably by most reviewers, with several explicitly noting All Star beat competitor quotes, though one 2-star review alleged a significantly inflated estimate and one 1-star review described a $2,000+ quote for a water heater installation as predatory, introducing meaningful downward pressure on the pricing score.

• Seven reviews contain no text at all (labeled 'unknown' or blank) and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute only to total review count.
• The majority of highly positive reviews share similar phrasing patterns (prompt, courteous, professional, knowledgeable) which is common for genuine reviews in this industry but warrants mild caution.
• Two 1-star reviews and two 2-star reviews raise specific concerns: one describes a leaking water heater with no follow-up from the company, one describes repeated missed appointments and poor responsiveness from Jennifer, one alleges a technician lied about a shut-off valve to manufacture an emergency upsell, and one describes a $2,000+ water heater quote as predatory — these are credible negative signals and are factored into scoring.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 20+) are dated 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps, suggesting possible batch import or platform migration rather than organic posting — this does not necessarily indicate fake reviews but reduces confidence in the date accuracy of those entries.
• Many reviews are older than 3 years (2013–2021 range), which limits their relevance to current service quality. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more heavily weighted in scoring.
• One review references 'All Stay Plumbing' and another 'All Start' — likely typos for the same company, treated as valid reviews.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable content and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with awareness that a small cluster of credible negative reviews — particularly around follow-through, appointment reliability, and one alleged upsell — indicate the company is not without meaningful service failures.

Anderson Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning many years and what appears to be multiple locations or franchises operating under the same name. Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and clean workmanship. Project completion scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of faulty workmanship requiring a third-party fix — these negative signals are explicit and credible. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while a notable cluster of negative reviews specifically cite hidden charges, misquoted prices, and billing for invoice-writing time, reducing confidence in consistent pricing transparency. Experience scores are generally high, with many reviewers praising diagnostic accuracy and problem-solving, though a handful of reviews describe technicians who failed to identify root causes or created new problems, preventing a higher score.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference a very large number of different named technicians (Sam, Neil, Chris, Greg, Mark, Andrew, Justin, Francisco, Richard, Carson, Andre, Jimmy, James, Norbert, Caleb, Ryan, Wes, Dale, Zane, Pat, Craig, Gilbert, Bill, Tim, Tony, and others) across dates spanning 2004–2025. This strongly suggests these reviews aggregate multiple distinct Anderson Plumbing businesses in different cities/states rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any one business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews have no date (Date: None). Several of these are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great work and great price!', 'I highly Recommend them and will definitely be using them again.', 'These gentlemen were the absolute best.'). These undated reviews lack specifics and may inflate positive sentiment. Confidence in undated reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with dates fall between 2020 and 2025, with a meaningful tail going back to 2004. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) may not reflect current service quality and have been weighted less heavily in scoring.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Multiple explicit negative reviews describe hidden charges, billing for travel/invoice time, misquoted prices, and charges significantly above initial estimates. Two reviews describe being charged $400+ more than quoted without authorization. This creates a meaningful downward pressure on the pricing score despite many positive pricing mentions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION NEGATIVES: At least 6 reviews describe explicit no-shows or abandoned work (2010, 2016, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024). One review describes faulty installation of a p-trap that failed twice and was installed backwards. One review describes a PRV installation that broke and was never remedied. These are serious completion failures that materially reduce the project completion score.
• WORKMANSHIP NEGATIVES: At least 3 reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose the correct problem, with a subsequent plumber identifying the real issue. One review describes a technician who created a new leak while fixing another. These reduce the experience score from what would otherwise be very high.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed. Several blank 1-star and 2-star reviews suggest dissatisfied customers who did not elaborate.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (296 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score strong statistical weight; however, reliability is meaningfully reduced by the strong likelihood that these reviews represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the Anderson Plumbing name across different cities and states, by a recurring pattern of no-show and pricing complaints that are explicit and credible, and by a cluster of undated generic reviews that may artificially inflate positive sentiment.

Diamond Heating and Cooling demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive, courteous technicians and efficient service delivery across 35 mentions. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and follow-through honored, though a few callbacks and incomplete initial diagnoses were noted. Technical experience is generally sound with skilled installation and repair work evident in 22 mentions. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness: 15 mentions reveal a pattern of aggressive upselling, inflated estimates, and questionable recommendations (unnecessary furnace replacements, duct work, capacitor specs within tolerance). Multiple customers reported being quoted $3,600–$17,500 for work that cost $270–$850 elsewhere, and several technicians recommended expensive repairs that proved unnecessary or dishonest.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 8) describe aggressive or dishonest sales tactics, including recommending unnecessary replacements, inflated estimates, and pressure to upsell. Examples: $3,600 estimate vs. $850 actual repair; $17,500 replacement recommendation that was not disclosed to homeowners; recommending furnace replacement when only a simple fix was needed; suggesting duct replacement based on flawed physics; recommending capacitor replacement when specs were within tolerance.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: While many technicians are praised (Kenny, Glen, Danny, Jason, Rob, Chris, Owen, Cord), at least 3 reviews describe rude, incompetent, or dismissive behavior from specific technicians who failed to diagnose issues properly or became defensive when questioned.
• SECOND OPINION PATTERN: Company heavily markets 'free second opinion' service, which appears designed to capture customers dissatisfied with competitors' high estimates. While this can be honest, the frequency of complaints about Diamond's own inflated estimates suggests potential bait-and-switch dynamics.
• INSTALLATION/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: One review describes installation problems (disconnected vent) that went undiagnosed for a year; another describes multiple failed repair attempts before eventual replacement.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2015–2022 (older than 12 months). Only 4 reviews are from 2024–2023. Older reviews may not reflect current practices.
• ONE UNRELATED REVIEW: Review dated 2018-02-06 about an African market (Sukrani) was included in dataset by error and excluded from analysis.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for professionalism and project completion (HIGH confidence, 28–35 mentions each), but the pricing dimension (MODERATE confidence, 15 mentions) significantly drags the overall score and reflects genuine customer concerns about estimate inflation and upselling tactics. The company excels in responsiveness and technical skill but has a documented pattern of aggressive pricing practices that warrants caution. Customers should obtain multiple independent quotes and be skeptical of high-cost recommendations.

Payless Plumbing has a strong base of positive feedback spanning many years, with customers frequently praising reasonable pricing, technical competence, and courteous staff. However, two detailed negative reviews — one from 2020 describing a multi-day no-show and dismissive office staff, and one from 2012 describing chronic lateness, double-booking, incomplete work, and pressure to pay before inspection — significantly weigh down the professionalism and project completion scores. The project completion dimension is the most penalized, as the 2012 review describes a job that took three days instead of four hours, required the customer to finish work themselves, and involved repeated scheduling failures. Pricing remains the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different years independently noting fair and reasonable costs without hidden charges. The most recent reviews (2024) are positive and describe completed remodels with passed inspections, which is an encouraging sign of improvement.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year, with most dating from 2007–2020. Only three reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting confidence in current performance.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW WEIGHT: Two low-rated reviews (2.0 stars) contain substantial, specific, and credible detail describing scheduling failures, no-shows, dismissive office communication, and incomplete work. These are treated as high-credibility negative signals.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Two 5-star reviews were posted on the same date (2024-05-21) within minutes of each other, both describing similar remodeling projects. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild suspicion of coordinated or prompted reviews.
• ONE REVIEW UNUSABLE: One review contained only the text 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews date back to 2007–2014 and may not reflect current business practices or personnel. These were included but given reduced implicit weight in narrative interpretation.

This WW Score is based on 21 usable reviews spanning 17 years and carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to mention volume, but consumers should note that the score is pulled down by two credible and detailed negative experiences, and that only three reviews post-date 2022, making it difficult to fully assess the contractor's current performance level.

Drake Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across most recent reviews (2024-2025). However, significant pricing concerns emerge from multiple reviews citing excessive flat-rate charges, hidden fees, and quotes 4x higher than competitors. Project completion shows mixed results with some excellent follow-through but also documented cases of no-shows, abandoned work, and unresolved callbacks. Technical experience is generally solid with skilled technicians, though older reviews reveal inconsistent quality depending on which technician was assigned. The company's performance has notable variance between individual technicians and time periods.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews (2018-2025) explicitly cite excessive charges—$1,300 for 1-hour job, $300 for 45-minute service, quotes 4x competitors, $39 diagnostic fees while competitors charge nothing. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Several documented no-shows and no-call incidents (2023, 2020, 2018) with poor communication. One review reports 35-day delay with no follow-up despite multiple customer calls.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews note quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned. Some technicians praised, others criticized for poor diagnostics and incomplete work.
• MANAGEMENT/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple complaints about service managers not returning calls, not following up on promised callbacks, and dismissive responses to complaints (2024, 2023, 2015, 2014).
• RECENT POSITIVE TREND: Reviews from June 2025 and May 2025 are overwhelmingly 5-star with specific praise. However, reviews from April 2025 show one 2-star pricing complaint and one 1-star management complaint, suggesting ongoing issues despite recent improvements.
• OLDER REVIEWS (2008-2015): Many 5-star reviews with generic praise and 'unknown' text fields suggest possible data quality issues or placeholder reviews from that era.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One 2014 review documents gas leak caused by Drake that went unresolved for days with poor emergency response and no guidance to customer on safety measures.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial data (120 reviews, 68+ mentions per dimension). However, the score masks significant bifurcation: recent reviews (2024-2025) trend toward 5-star professionalism and experience, while pricing complaints are consistent across all time periods and project completion shows persistent operational issues (no-shows, delays, poor follow-up). Customers should expect strong technical work and professional technicians but should obtain multiple quotes, clarify all-in pricing upfront, and confirm appointment details in writing due to documented scheduling and communication failures.