Find Nearby Plumbers In Murray, Utah

This contractor demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and reliable project completion. Technicians are frequently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and clear communication, with many reviews highlighting same-day or next-day service availability. Project completion is solid, with most jobs finished as promised and follow-through honored. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with approximately 19% of reviews mentioning concerns about costs being high, overcharges, or unexpected price increases. Experience and technical knowledge are generally well-regarded, though some reviews indicate occasional diagnostic errors or incomplete solutions on first visits.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Approximately 19% of reviews (187 mentions) explicitly address pricing issues. Common complaints include: unexpected price increases after initial quotes, charges significantly higher than competitors, hidden or undisclosed fees, and perception of overcharging. Multiple reviews cite price gouging, particularly on emergency/after-hours calls and warranty work.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 25-30 reviews (2.5-3% of total) show suspicious characteristics: identical phrasing ('excellent service,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional'), generic praise with zero specifics, all 5-star ratings with minimal detail, and clustered dates (particularly June 2025, May 2025). These appear to be artificially generated or incentivized reviews. Confidence in overall score reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• SCHEDULING/RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: While most reviews praise quick response times, approximately 12 reviews document significant scheduling failures including no-shows, cancelled appointments without callback, and long delays in returning calls or providing estimates. This suggests operational inconsistency.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIABILITY: Approximately 8-10 reviews mention incomplete first visits, misdiagnosis of problems, or work that required callbacks to fix. One review explicitly praised the company's quality control system with photo review by senior staff.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from May-June 2025 (very recent), with a sharp drop-off in reviews from 2024 and earlier. This concentration may inflate current scores if recent performance differs from historical patterns.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews reference multiple business names ('The Plumber,' 'O&M Plumbing,' 'My Plumber,' 'Pro Plumbers Grapevine,' 'Roboco Enterprises Inc dba The Plumber') suggesting either franchises, rebranding, or data aggregation from multiple unrelated companies. This may compromise score reliability.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion dimensions, but MODERATE confidence for pricing due to documented overcharge patterns. The presence of suspected fake reviews (2.5-3% of dataset) and the concentration of recent reviews (60% from May-June 2025) suggest the score may not be fully representative of long-term performance. Customers should expect strong service quality and responsiveness but should obtain detailed written quotes and compare pricing with competitors before committing, particularly for large jobs or emergency services.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism and problem-solving ability, with multiple reviews praising politeness, responsiveness, and technical skill in diagnosing difficult issues. However, critical failures in project completion significantly undermine the overall score: a 2022 review documents two major installation failures (cracked dishwasher installed without inspection, drain pipe left unconnected causing basement water damage). While responsiveness was noted as excellent, work quality was explicitly criticized. The contractor's score is dragged down by these documented completion failures despite positive interpersonal feedback.

• CRITICAL: 2022 review documents severe project completion failures—cracked dishwasher installed without inspection and drain pipe not connected, resulting in water damage to basement. This is a major red flag for quality control.
• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5-star ratings (2016-06-14 and 2017-03-16). These appear to be placeholder or fake reviews with no substantive content. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• Significant recency gap: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2019 (5–7 years old). The most recent review (2022) is highly negative, suggesting possible quality decline or inconsistency.
• Review from 2022 explicitly states 'One star for the quality but 5 star for responsiveness,' indicating a disconnect between communication/responsiveness and actual work execution.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by multiple detailed reviews, the project completion score is heavily influenced by a single but severe 2022 failure involving water damage. The presence of fake/placeholder reviews and the age of most positive reviews further reduce confidence. The contractor's recent track record appears problematic despite historical strengths in customer service.

Professionalism scores moderately because while a large number of reviews praise individual technicians as friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative, a significant and recurring minority describe rude office staff, dispatchers who hung up on customers, failure to notify customers of schedule changes, and at least one technician described as appearing impaired. Pricing is the most heavily penalized dimension: dozens of explicit complaints describe charges of $400–$1,800+ for jobs lasting under an hour, non-transparent fee structures, undisclosed dispatch fees, and quotes that ballooned after work began — with multiple reviewers stating they were charged more than quoted or charged for work that did not fix the problem. Project completion suffers from a meaningful pattern of abandoned or incomplete jobs, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, parts never ordered, jobs left mid-way, and in several cases customers having to hire a second company to finish what Best Plumbing started. Experience scores in the moderate range because many individual technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but a notable subset of negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, wrong parts, broken equipment left behind, and work that made problems worse — suggesting uneven technical quality across the workforce.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the long 'sewer backup on a Sunday' review appears twice on different dates; the 'Fast and prof Service' review appears twice; the 'Professional, Helpful, Communicative' Morgan Hoover review appears twice; the 'Best Plumbing Company is simply the BEST' Trent and Sheldon review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but inflate the raw review count.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-06 with no review text (rating only, all 5-star) is highly suspicious and suggests possible review padding. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• PLATFORM DISCREPANCY NOTED: One reviewer explicitly states the company has a 1.5/5 rating on Consumer Checkbook and a 3.0 on Yelp versus a much higher Google rating, and questions whether positive Google reviews are authentic. This is consistent with the observed pattern of generic, brief 5-star reviews alongside detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) include both strong positives and several serious negatives including pricing complaints, incomplete work, and threatening collection behavior, suggesting the issues are ongoing and not historical.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer alleges the owner called months after a negative review to offer $100 to remove it, which if accurate represents a serious ethical concern about review integrity.
• BILLING PRACTICE FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same pattern — undisclosed dispatch/diagnostic fees, no upfront estimates, charges presented only after work is done, and refusal to itemize invoices. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 8 distinct reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits for the same issue, or required a second company to finish — a significant project completion risk for prospective customers.
• THREATENING COLLECTIONS FLAG: At least two reviewers describe being threatened with police action or property liens when disputing bills, including in one case for work that did not fix the problem. This is a serious customer service and ethical flag.

This WW Score of 58.3 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should weight it cautiously given strong evidence of systematic pricing opacity, a suspicious cluster of blank 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate the overall star average on other platforms, and a recurring pattern of incomplete work and aggressive billing practices documented across multiple years and geographies.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review history, with a substantial majority of reviews describing serious failures across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by recurring reports of rude office staff, technicians who were dismissive or hostile, no-shows without notification, and unprofessional conduct on-site including walking through sewage without shoe covers and bringing children to jobs. Pricing received one of the lowest scores due to multiple credible accounts of bait-and-switch advertising, wildly inflated quotes, charges for work not performed, and upselling of unnecessary parts or systems. Project completion is critically low, with numerous reviews describing abandoned jobs, repeat failed service calls spanning weeks or months, unresolved leaks, and work that made problems worse rather than better. Experience scores are similarly poor, with many reviewers explicitly describing technicians as clueless, misdiagnosing problems, installing parts incorrectly, and failing to identify obvious issues that other companies resolved quickly. The minority of positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative experiences documented across a decade of reviews.

• Several positive reviews are notably brief, generic, or lack specific detail (e.g., 'Professional and reliable', 'Used this company to replace my A/C unit and it works well', 'Thank you again for handling my repair needs. Professional and courteous.'), which may indicate solicited or low-effort reviews.
• The owner (Shon) appears to have responded to negative reviews with disputed or potentially dishonest rebuttals, as documented by at least one reviewer who provided invoice-based evidence contradicting the owner's public response.
• One reviewer explicitly states the owner called them to demand removal of a negative review, threatened legal action, and promised compensation that was never delivered after the review was taken down — indicating a pattern of review manipulation.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2024. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (pre-September 2023). Only 2 reviews fall within the most recent 12-month window (September 2024), both of which are split: one strongly positive (drywall/ceiling repair) and one strongly negative (AC compressor failure with disputed owner response). Recency weighting does not meaningfully change the overall score given the consistent negative pattern across all time periods.
• The single 5-star review from September 2024 describes drywall and scaffolding work, which may be a different crew or service line than the HVAC and plumbing work that dominates the negative reviews. This limits its comparability.
• Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same patterns: rude receptionist/office staff, technicians misdiagnosing HVAC issues, inflated or fraudulent quotes, and failure to complete jobs — suggesting these are systemic organizational issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 38.7 is based on a large sample of 52 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's overall service quality; the volume and consistency of negative feedback across multiple years and service types makes this score highly trustworthy.

Both available reviews are severely negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor who fails to show up, ignores client communications, and in one case allegedly retained a deposit without performing any work. Professionalism scores near zero due to explicit reports of unanswered calls, emails, and texts across both reviews. Project completion is scored at its lowest because one reviewer describes a month of no-shows followed by weeks of inaction and a deteriorating pool, while the other reports zero work completed despite a paid deposit. Pricing receives a near-zero score due to an explicit allegation of deposit theft and refusal to refund. No workmanship or technical skill was observed or described in either review, so experience cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• One review explicitly alleges financial misconduct — deposit retained since March 2021 with no work performed and no refund issued. This is a serious red flag beyond typical service complaints.
• Both reviews are dated between 2021 and 2022; no recent reviews are available to assess whether performance has improved or worsened.
• No positive reviews exist in this dataset — the sample, while small, is uniformly negative with specific, credible detail rather than generic complaints, reducing likelihood of fake negative reviews but warranting caution given the tiny sample size.

This score carries very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available; however, the severity and specificity of both complaints — including alleged deposit theft and repeated no-shows — represent serious concerns that prospective customers should weigh heavily regardless of sample size.

Only a single review is available, dated November 2017, making it over 7 years old and of limited relevance to current performance. The reviewer describes the contractor as 'reliable and helpful' and notes repeat usage, which provides minimal positive signals for professionalism and project completion. However, no specific details are given about pricing, technical skill, workmanship quality, or job scope, leaving two of four dimensions entirely unscored. The vague and generic nature of the review prevents confident scoring in any dimension.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated November 2017, making it more than 7 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces its reliability as an indicator of current performance.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail (no mention of job type, pricing, timeline, or technical observations). This limits scoring confidence across all dimensions.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.

This score report is highly unreliable due to a single, vague, and significantly outdated review — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or value should be drawn from this data.