Find Nearby Plumbers In Salt Lake City, Utah

Rentmeister presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Recent reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive, praising individual technicians for professionalism, communication, and responsiveness, which pulls the professionalism and experience scores upward. However, a substantial body of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — documents serious concerns including overcharging, unapproved work, abandoned jobs, no-shows, and technicians who damaged property or failed to complete repairs. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple explicit complaints about inflated bills, hidden charges, trip fees, and quotes far exceeding competitors. Project completion is also significantly impacted by recurring accounts of unfinished work, technicians not returning, and jobs left in worse condition than found.

• 13 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews dated 2015-09-16 appear to be near-identical duplicates, likely submitted by the same customer twice. Only one was counted per dimension.
• Two reviews dated 2017-01 (Jan 19 and Jan 30) describe the same incident in nearly identical language and appear to be duplicate submissions from the same customer. Only one was counted per dimension.
• A notable recency split exists: reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive (4–5 stars), while reviews from 2011–2022 contain the majority of 1-star complaints. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but the older negative reviews document serious systemic issues including fraud allegations, abandoned work, and property damage.
• Multiple negative reviews allege deceptive or fraudulent billing practices — including unapproved parts installation, inflated scopes of work, and charges for services not rendered. These are serious flags that weigh heavily on the pricing and project completion scores.
• One 1-star review (2025-01-10) alleges a no-show after selling a new annual service plan, suggesting some concerning practices may still be ongoing despite recent positive reviews.
• The 2025 positive reviews, while numerous, are relatively brief and generic in several cases ('Great service as always', 'Thank you for your service', 'Friendly and quick'). While not conclusively fake, the lack of specifics in several recent 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically reliable, but users should weigh the serious fraud and abandonment allegations in older reviews carefully alongside the more positive recent trend.

Budget Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. A meaningful cluster of positive reviews — many from 2021–2024 — praise individual technicians like Chad, Michael, and Memo for being professional, friendly, and skilled, and several customers highlight competitive pricing and quick response times. However, a substantial body of negative reviews — spanning 2012 through 2024 — documents serious and recurring failures: chronic no-shows and missed appointments without communication, prices charged well above quoted amounts, incomplete or abandoned work, and multiple accounts of the owner Mike behaving in a verbally abusive and confrontational manner toward customers. The pricing dimension is particularly damaged by repeated reports of bait-and-switch billing, hidden charges, and customers paying double their quoted amount. Project completion is similarly undermined by multiple reviews describing unfinished jobs, unrepaired damage caused by the company, and broken promises to return. The experience dimension scores moderately because while many technicians are praised for competence, there are credible accounts of poor workmanship, failed repairs, and damage caused by careless technicians.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The lengthy 1-star review describing a basement finishing nightmare (Mike telling customer to 'F off', paid in full but job abandoned) appears twice with identical text and nearly identical timestamps on 2020-12-09. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review about being charged $1578 vs an $800 bid for a water heater appears twice with identical text and identical timestamps on 2018-07-03. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2021-06-10 and 2024-06-09 share the same date, are very brief, lack specific detail, and follow a generic praise pattern ('Great guys', 'Awesome work!', 'Mike was great to work with'). This pattern is consistent with review padding and these have been weighted conservatively.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with no text were excluded from dimension scoring (one 1-star dated 2024-06-09, one 5-star dated 2021-06-10).
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) are mixed but lean positive for individual technician interactions. However, the structural problems — pricing transparency, no-shows, and owner conduct — appear across the full date range from 2012 to 2024, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the owner Mike as verbally abusive, confrontational, and using profane language toward customers. This is a serious and recurring flag.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least five separate reviews across multiple years describe being charged significantly more than the quoted price, in some cases nearly double. This is a pattern, not an anomaly.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least six separate reviews describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without calling, across multiple years. This is a systemic reliability issue.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the significant volume of detailed, specific negative reviews describing systemic issues with pricing transparency, appointment reliability, and owner conduct that persist across the full review timeline.

All Hours Plumbing receives genuinely mixed feedback across its review history. Individual technicians — Aaron, Anthony, Keith, Jared, Blane, Raul, and Chuck — are frequently praised for friendliness, professionalism, and technical competence, which keeps professionalism and experience scores in the moderate-to-good range. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describe charges that reviewers found to be two to eight times higher than competing quotes, with specific dollar amounts cited ($350 for no diagnosis, $800+ for simple repairs, $2,000 for a one-hour job). Project completion is mixed — several reviews confirm thorough, complete work, but at least two reviews describe jobs that were left incomplete or inadequate (toilet re-clogged within two hours, water heater not diagnosed). The heavy volume of pricing complaints, spanning multiple years and written with specific detail, significantly drags the overall WW Score down.

• PRICING CONCERN: At least 7 of 18 reviews explicitly describe pricing as excessive, with specific dollar figures cited. This is a statistically significant pattern and not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: Two reviews describe work that was either not completed properly (toilet re-clogged within 2 hours) or where diagnosis was refused and a service fee was still charged ($350 for no diagnosis performed).
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2014–2018. The most recent reviews (2021–2024) skew negative, particularly around pricing. This suggests a possible decline in value or pricing practices over time.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Most reviews — both positive and negative — contain specific technician names, dollar amounts, and situational details, which increases their credibility. One reviewer explicitly stated 'This is not a fake review,' which is a minor flag but not conclusive.
• TECHNICIAN VS. COMPANY SPLIT: Multiple negative reviews praise the individual technician while criticizing company-level pricing and sales practices. This suggests a systemic pricing/commission structure issue rather than individual technician incompetence.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews spanning 2014–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the strong recency skew toward negative pricing reviews and the technician-vs-company split suggest the score accurately reflects a business with capable field staff but problematic pricing practices.

Expert Plumbing Service demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism in execution, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable technicians (particularly Chris and Lukasz), prompt response times, and quality workmanship. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints across 24 reviews spanning over a decade, with customers consistently reporting charges 3–10x higher than market rates for identical work. While project completion is generally solid and professionalism is above average, the extreme pricing disparity—combined with aggressive upselling tactics, hidden service fees, and targeting of elderly customers—creates a fundamental trust issue that dominates the overall assessment.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 24 of 35 reviews (69%) explicitly criticize pricing as exorbitant, with documented examples of $1,200 for basic fixture installation, $455 for a $30 outdoor spigot, $833 for a budget toilet, and $685 for flex line replacement. This is not isolated—it is systemic and consistent across 15+ years.
• PREDATORY PRACTICES TOWARD ELDERLY: Multiple reviews document targeting of senior citizens (90-year-old father charged $833 for budget toilet; elderly parents charged $685 for flex lines). One detailed review from 2016 provides itemized cost analysis showing 400%+ markup on materials and labor.
• HIDDEN FEES AND BAIT-AND-SWITCH: Consistent pattern of $65 'free estimate' fees that are non-refundable, refusal to quote over phone, and dramatic price increases after technician arrival (e.g., $400 to $1,000 within 10 minutes). Customers report feeling trapped into accepting inflated quotes.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Two reviews document significant damage (camera head broken in sewer line, water damage to bathroom floor with grout staining) with inadequate remediation. One review reports work that leaked within 1 month and missing pipes after job completion.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite missed appointment windows, no-shows, lack of callback, and rude customer service representatives. One customer waited entire day with no communication until they called to inquire.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While some reviews praise Chris and Lukasz as exceptional, others describe inadequate inspections (sump pump inspection where technician did not actually inspect the unit) and incomplete diagnostics.
• REVIEW AGE DISTRIBUTION: Most negative reviews are from 2008–2016 (older), but pricing complaints continue through 2024. Recent 1-star reviews (2024, 2019) show pattern persists. Positive reviews cluster around 2014–2018 with specific technician names (Chris, Lukasz, Art G.), suggesting quality varies by individual technician rather than company standard.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('Chris was amazing,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') and lack specific cost details, which is suspicious given that pricing is the dominant complaint theme. However, these reviews do contain specific project details (water heater replacement, sump pump, sewer line) that appear genuine, so confidence in fake detection is limited.

This WW Score of 54.8 is highly reliable due to large sample size (35 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions, but it significantly underrepresents the severity of the pricing issue because the scoring formula weights all dimensions equally; in reality, pricing complaints dominate 69% of reviews and represent the primary driver of customer dissatisfaction, making the true customer experience worse than the numerical score suggests. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence but appears to operate a systematic pricing model designed to maximize extraction from customers, particularly vulnerable populations, which is a fundamental ethical and business practice concern that transcends technical capability.

Nook and Kranny presents a deeply divided review profile: a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising thoroughness, knowledgeable inspectors, and professionalism sits alongside a substantial number of 1-star reviews detailing serious inspection failures, missed defects, and unresponsive customer service. The negative reviews are notably specific and credible, citing missed insulation gaps, non-functional outlets, leaking faucets, incorrect furnace assessments, and roof evaluations conducted without a ladder — all of which represent significant professional failures for a home inspection company. Multiple negative reviewers also report that the company ignored follow-up complaints, refused refunds, and failed to respond to written correspondence, which heavily penalizes the professionalism and project completion dimensions. Pricing scores are dragged down by multiple reviewers who felt they paid $400–$600 for substandard or incomplete work, representing poor value. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are largely older (2016–2021) and are outweighed in severity by the more recent and detailed negative accounts.

• Several 5-star reviews use vague, generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'You guys are the best,' 'Thorough and professional') and were posted in a short cluster around August 14, 2019 — three reviews on the same date — which may suggest coordinated or solicited reviews.
• The most recent reviews (2024) include both a positive and two strongly negative reviews; the negative 2024 reviews are highly specific and credible, including documented third-party verification of missed defects.
• Multiple independent negative reviewers report the same pattern: missed major defects, inspector overconfidence, and complete non-responsiveness to complaints — this consistency across unrelated reviewers increases the credibility of the negative accounts.
• One reviewer (2024) reports the inspector placed company advertising stickers on the client's property without permission, which is an unprofessional and potentially inappropriate business practice.
• A reviewer noted the inspector arrived without a ladder and still rendered a roof assessment, which is a serious professional and liability concern.
• The BBB is referenced negatively by two separate reviewers, suggesting a pattern of unresolved complaints beyond this review platform.
• Recency note: The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2021; the most recent reviews (2022–2024) skew negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the stark polarization between detailed, credible negative reviews and older, less specific positive reviews.

Admiral Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested area: while several reviewers praise punctuality, courtesy, and communication, multiple 1-star reviews describe no-notice arrivals, failure to return calls, dishonest reporting to insurance/warranty companies, and outright rude behavior — pulling the score well below average. Project completion is similarly split: some jobs were resolved quickly and thoroughly, but at least three reviews describe abandoned or botched work, a technician leaving water shut off after breaking a faucet, and a furnace misdiagnosed repeatedly. Pricing received both praise (best price found, fairly priced) and serious criticism (double the market rate for non-warranty work, $59 for 20 minutes, a $100 charge for damage the technician likely caused). Experience scores are dragged down by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, dishonest upselling of unnecessary repairs, and a furnace technician attributing shaking walls to dust when a full replacement was needed.

• Several reviews are significantly older than 12 months — the majority predate 2022, with only 3 reviews from 2022 or later. Recent performance data is thin and should be weighted more heavily.
• Two reviews (2009 and 2011) are over a decade old and may not reflect current business practices; they were included in scoring but carry minimal relevance.
• At least three reviews describe dishonest behavior: misrepresenting findings to insurance/warranty companies, pushing unnecessary repairs, and fabricating diagnoses. This is a serious pattern, not isolated incidents.
• One 1-star review (2023-06-23) is solely about unsolicited robocalling to a Do Not Call list number — this reflects on business ethics but not directly on trade skill; it was counted under professionalism.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, but the 5-star reviews tend to be brief and generic while the negative reviews contain specific, detailed accounts — this asymmetry slightly reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• The robocalling complaint and the insurance misrepresentation complaints suggest potential ethical and legal compliance issues beyond typical service quality concerns.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews spanning 14 years, with only 3 reviews from the past 2 years, which significantly limits confidence in how well the score reflects the contractor's current performance; the score should be treated as a historical average with moderate reliability at best.