Find Nearby Plumbers In Bountiful, Utah

Integrity Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (87.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous staff. Pricing scores well (82.0) with many customers noting fair, transparent, and competitive rates. Project completion (85.5) reflects reliable follow-through, though a small number of reviews mention delayed callbacks or incomplete follow-up. Technical expertise (83.0) is consistently praised, with customers highlighting knowledgeable technicians and thorough diagnostics. The company's name genuinely reflects its operational values in the majority of reviews.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-08, 2025-06-05, and 2025-06-03 contain identical text (long, detailed narrative about managing renovation projects, mentioning Emily, James, Josh, Steve, Lyle by name). This repetition across three consecutive dates is highly suspicious and suggests potential review manipulation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 18 reviews contain only a 5.0 rating with no text content. While not necessarily fake, these provide no substantive data and inflate review count without evidence.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), with a sharp increase in volume in recent months. Earlier reviews (2006-2020) show more varied ratings (including 1-3 star reviews), while recent reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star. This pattern warrants caution.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CONCENTRATED IN PAST: Most 1-star and 2-star reviews are from 2013-2022. Recent negative reviews (2024-2025) are rare, which could indicate either genuine improvement or selective review removal/suppression.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS LOCATIONS/OWNERS: Reviews reference different owners/technicians across different regions (Dave, James, Toby, Marc, Sean, etc.) and locations (Rancho Santa Margarita, Vallejo, Omaha, Utah, Brentwood, etc.), suggesting either multiple franchises under one name or significant data mixing. This complicates reliability assessment.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY IDENTITY: Some reviews reference 'Integrity Plumbing' as a single-owner operation (Dave, James, Toby), while others describe it as a larger company with multiple crews. Geographic and personnel inconsistencies suggest these may be different companies with the same name.

While the WW Score of 84.2 reflects genuinely positive feedback across most dimensions, the reliability is MODERATE-TO-HIGH rather than fully HIGH due to: (1) suspicious identical reviews in June 2025 suggesting potential manipulation, (2) 18 empty 5-star reviews providing no evidence, (3) dramatic recency bias with 60% of reviews from past 12 months and nearly all recent reviews being 5-star, and (4) apparent mixing of multiple businesses/locations under the same name. The score is most trustworthy for recent service quality (2024-2025) but should be viewed with caution regarding historical consistency. Customers should verify they are contacting the correct location/owner before booking.

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.

Right Way Plumbing receives consistent positive feedback across professionalism, pricing transparency, and workmanship from multiple reviewers spanning several years. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out fair, transparent, and competitive rates. However, one serious 1-star review alleges fraudulent business conduct, bankruptcy filings to avoid lawsuits, and incompetent work — this materially drags down scores across all dimensions and cannot be ignored. The positive reviews are largely credible with specific details, but the severe negative review introduces meaningful uncertainty. Recency is also a concern, as several positive reviews are 5–13 years old, with only two reviews from the past 12 months.

• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG: One reviewer (2023-09-22) alleges the business operators filed bankruptcy to escape lawsuits, acted as 'con men,' and left customers with unfinished or improperly completed work. This is a significant red flag that warrants independent verification before hiring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Of 8 reviews, only 2 are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2023). Three reviews are from 2011–2012 and carry very low recency weight. The business's current quality and practices may differ substantially from older reviews.
• REVIEWER IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: The negative review references 'Scott & Roger' as operators, while positive reviews consistently reference 'Mike' as the owner/operator. This may indicate a different business entity, a name change, or a misdirected review — but it cannot be dismissed without verification.
• VOLUME WARNING: Only 8 total reviews across what appears to be 13+ years of operation is a very low review volume. This limits statistical confidence in any dimension score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. No obvious fake review pattern identified among the positive reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review volume, significant age of most positive reviews, and one serious unresolved allegation of fraudulent conduct that has not been publicly rebutted — prospective customers should independently verify the business's current standing before engaging.

Scott Bangerter and Bangerter Plumbing receive consistently strong praise across all five reviews, with professionalism being the most frequently and specifically cited dimension — reviewers highlight punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and respectful demeanor in multiple detailed accounts. Project completion scores well, supported by evidence of follow-through including a no-charge callback to fix a leaking faucet and reliable job execution across multiple visits. Experience is also well-supported, with one detailed review describing deep product knowledge, diagnostic ability, and customer education around plumbing options. Pricing data is limited to indirect signals — a transparent quote process and a no-charge repair — which supports a modestly positive but conservative score. The overall WW Score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of the reviews, all of which are between 10 and 18 years old.

• All 5 reviews are significantly outdated — the most recent is from August 2014, and the oldest is from June 2006. None fall within the past 12 months or even the past decade. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• One review (2012-10-09) contains no usable detail — 'Great - unequivably recommend them' — and contributes no scoreable evidence to any dimension.
• The small sample size of 5 reviews limits statistical reliability. The WW Score should be treated as directionally indicative only, not definitive.
• No fake review patterns detected. The detailed reviews contain specific names, scenarios, and product references consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 5 reviews and the fact that all reviews are between 10 and 18 years old, making it impossible to assess the contractor's current quality of service.

Jerry's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While technicians often demonstrate competence and friendliness (professionalism: 68, experience: 71), the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints (52) and substantial project completion issues (65). Customers frequently report being overcharged, receiving inflated estimates, and experiencing poor follow-through on repairs. The high volume of negative reviews citing communication failures, missed appointments, and incomplete work substantially outweighs positive feedback, resulting in a below-average WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Extensive fake review pattern detected. Approximately 80+ reviews (16% of dataset) contain near-identical or highly repetitive phrasing clustered around June 2-8, 2025, and April 10, 2025. Examples: 'Service response was very quick' (repeated 5 times identically), 'Showed up on schedule did job quick and great outcome!' (repeated 6 times identically), 'Very fast response to call. On time for service. Efficient and knowledgeable repair of problem. Plumber is friendly and direct. This is our second use of Jerry's Plumbing. Will call again' (repeated 4 times identically). Multiple empty reviews (5-star with no text) also present. These appear to be artificially inflated positive reviews.
• SEVERE: Pricing dimension shows overwhelming evidence of overcharging. 98 mentions include: $680 for simple valve replacement, $450 for $198 pressure regulator, $237.50/hour labor rates, $1,150+ water heater installations with hidden fees, $7,000 repipe quotes later found to be $3,500 elsewhere, and systematic refusal to provide itemized estimates. Pattern suggests deliberate opacity in pricing.
• SEVERE: Project completion failures are systemic. Multiple reviews document: incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, no-shows despite scheduled appointments, work left unfinished, incorrect installations (e.g., shower stopcock installed wrong, water heater exhaust never installed), and refusal to honor warranty callbacks. One customer waited 6 months for furnace repair; another had AC disabled during repair.
• SEVERE: Communication and follow-up are critically deficient. Documented issues include: technicians not calling back for weeks, office staff being rude/hanging up on customers, miscommunication between office and field staff, failure to provide promised estimates, and contradictory information given to customers vs. insurance companies.
• MODERATE: Technician quality is highly variable. While some named technicians (Omar, David, John, Zac, Mario) receive individual praise, others are described as incompetent, lazy, or unprofessional. One technician allegedly urinated by customer's front door; another failed to diagnose basic issues.
• MODERATE: Home warranty company relationship issues. Multiple reviews indicate Jerry's was fired by or removed from home warranty provider lists due to poor performance and complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are heavily weighted toward fake 5-star reviews. Authentic negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024 and earlier, suggesting ongoing problems with recent reputation management attempts.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with CAUTION due to extensive fake review inflation in the dataset. The actual score is likely 5-10 points lower when fake reviews are excluded. The HIGH confidence rating reflects data volume, but the presence of systematic review manipulation significantly undermines the trustworthiness of this assessment. Customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews from 2023-2024 (which describe specific, verifiable problems) over recent generic 5-star reviews, and independently verify pricing and warranty terms before engaging this company.

Professionalism received the most mentions across reviews, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, politeness, cleanliness, and communication — though one serious negative review from 2020 described incomplete work and a dismissive attitude toward finishing the job. Project completion is dragged down significantly by that same 2020 review, in which a fixture was left uninstalled and an additional trip charge was demanded to complete work the contractor had not finished. Pricing received only two mentions: one implicit positive (a discount was credited for damages) and one negative (the same 2020 incident where the credit was insufficient given the scope of the problem). Experience scores moderately, with the detailed 2014 review describing skilled problem-solving on complex older plumbing, offset by the 2020 review describing a failure to even inspect a recommended fixture before installation. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool, the age of most positive reviews, and one substantive negative review that raises real concerns about accountability.

• Only 7 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent contractor behavior.
• 5 of 7 reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with 4 reviews dating to 2014–2016. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The score may not reflect current performance.
• Several reviews ('Yes. Very good and good to work with', 'Overall great', 'unknown') are extremely vague with no specific details. These provide minimal usable signal and may inflate the star rating without adding meaningful evidence.
• The 1-star review from 2020 is the most detailed negative review and describes multiple compounding failures: property damage, incomplete installation of a recommended fixture, and an attempt to charge extra to finish the job. This is a significant red flag for project completion and accountability.
• The review marked 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no text was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence — the review pool is small, the majority of reviews are over four years old, and the most recent substantive negative review raises serious concerns about project completion and contractor accountability that are not offset by the volume or specificity of positive reviews.