Find Nearby Plumbers In Sandy, Utah

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Neighborly Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, with multiple reviewers specifically praising responsiveness, friendliness, and fair or below-competition pricing. Project completion scores are tempered by one notable 1-star review describing being ghosted after initial contact, and one reviewer who gave 5 stars explicitly noting the job had not yet been completed — both of which introduce meaningful uncertainty around follow-through. Experience scores are supported by specific mentions of quality work, problem-solving, and careful workmanship (e.g., minimal drywall damage), though many reviews are vague or very brief. The overall dataset is small and a significant portion of reviews lack dates, limiting recency assessment. The score reflects genuine positive signals balanced against a thin evidence base and one clear service failure.

• A large number of reviews are extremely brief or generic (e.g., 'Great.', 'Quick and easy.', 'Great work and communication', 'Chris was awesome!!') with no specific details — these provide very limited usable data and may inflate perceived satisfaction.
• Most reviews have no date attached, making it impossible to assess recency or whether service quality has changed over time. Only 2 reviews have confirmed dates (both from 2021), meaning the dataset may be significantly outdated.
• One 1-star review explicitly describes being ghosted after initial contact — a direct professionalism and project completion concern that contrasts sharply with the otherwise positive reviews.
• One 5-star review was submitted before the job was completed, which is not a reliable indicator of project completion quality and should not be treated as a completion endorsement.
• While no obvious copy-paste fake review patterns were detected, the high volume of short, undated, uniformly positive reviews warrants mild caution. Confidence has been kept conservative accordingly.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability: the positive signals are consistent and some reviews are specific enough to be credible, but the small total review count, near-total absence of review dates, prevalence of vague one-line reviews, and one clear service failure prevent a high-confidence assessment.

Pro Master Services receives consistently positive feedback across all scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently mentioned and most strongly supported dimension. Multiple reviewers specifically called out technicians by name and praised their punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor. Pricing was highlighted favorably in at least two reviews, including one striking example where their quote was reportedly five times lower than a competitor's. Project completion and workmanship were noted positively but with limited detail in most reviews, reducing confidence in those scores. Overall, the picture is encouraging but the small review pool limits how much weight these scores should carry.

• Very small review pool (7 total, only 6 with usable data) — scores should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative.
• One review consists solely of a heart emoji with no textual content and was excluded from scoring.
• One review ('The work was quick and fast') is extremely generic and provides minimal usable detail — included only for project completion signal.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which is statistically unusual for a sample of any size and warrants caution.
• Most reviews are dated between October–November 2023, suggesting a possible cluster of reviews submitted in a short window, which can be a soft indicator of solicited or incentivized reviews.
• The most recent review (June 2024) is the only one within the past 12 months relative to a mid-2025 evaluation date — recency data is thin.

This WW Score is based on a very small and uniformly positive review set with limited detail in several reviews, meaning it should be treated as a tentative early indicator rather than a fully reliable assessment of contractor quality.

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.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record with serious recurring complaints across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple no-show incidents, a 4-day delay during a freezing emergency, technicians making unkept promises, and unprofessional conduct including trampling a customer's garden and leaving gates open. Pricing drew explicit complaints about bait-and-switch advertising ($89 drain snake escalating to $500) and a $220 charge for a 10-minute visit with no repairs made. Project completion is a major weakness — one customer was strung along for 6 weeks with a furnace never fixed, another had an incorrectly sized unit installed and ongoing return visits that still did not resolve the issue, and a vent plate fell off the day after installation. On the positive side, a handful of reviews do praise specific technicians (Kenneth Chapman, Schawn, Donald) for knowledge, punctuality, and follow-through, which prevents scores from bottoming out entirely but does not offset the volume of serious failures.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: One negative reviewer explicitly calls out a technician named Brady G. for leaving a 5-star review of his own company on this platform. This is a credible and specific allegation of review manipulation and reduces overall confidence in the positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2012 to 2021. Only one review (February 2023) falls within the past 12 months, limiting the ability to assess current performance.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Positive reviews tend to be generic in praise ('honest, professional, efficient') with limited specifics, while negative reviews contain detailed, specific incidents. This asymmetry slightly reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE FAILURE: At least two reviews describe the company being unresponsive or unhelpful during urgent cold-weather emergencies, which is a significant safety-related concern for an HVAC contractor.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: The $89 drain snake advertisement followed by a $500 upcharge demand is a specific and serious pricing integrity concern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: Installing a unit smaller than contracted, an incorrectly sized system, and a vent plate falling off the day after installation all point to quality control issues.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable review count (12 reviews), strong mention coverage across all dimensions, but is tempered by the wide date range spanning over a decade, a credible allegation of a self-posted fake review, and the fact that only one review is from the past 12 months — meaning current performance cannot be confidently assessed.

The review corpus is deeply polarized: a large cluster of brief, generic 5-star reviews (many with no text, dated 2024-06-06) contrasts sharply with detailed, credible 1-star accounts describing missed appointments, price gouging, fraudulent billing, scare tactics, and abandoned or botched work. Professionalism scores are dragged down severely by recurring patterns of no-shows, broken promises, unresponsive management, and at least two independent accounts of a truck damaging property and the company ghosting the HOA. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers obtaining second opinions and finding quotes 2x to 10x higher than competitors, plus allegations of billing for work not performed and unauthorized credit card openings. Project completion is critically undermined by multiple accounts of incomplete installs, return visits that never happened, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Experience scores are mixed: individual technicians (Preston, Holland, Taylor, Shea, Jared, Derrick) receive genuine praise for skill and knowledge, but systemic failures — wrong parts ordered, incorrect units installed, furnaces left uncommissioned, and misdiagnoses designed to upsell — pull the aggregate score down substantially.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Approximately 30-35 reviews are dated exactly 2024-06-06 with no time component, many containing zero review text (rating only), and the remainder using very short, generic praise with no specific details. This pattern is highly consistent with incentivized or fabricated reviews. One reviewer explicitly states the company offered $50 credits in exchange for positive reviews.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two review pairs appear to be near-identical or identical submissions (the $523 washer review appears twice with different dates; the Isaiah $5000 bid review appears twice; the Jared Boone review appears twice on the same date). These duplicates were counted once per unique incident for scoring purposes.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: Multiple reviewers explicitly note the company changed ownership and that quality and ethics declined significantly after the transition. Scores from pre-ownership-change positive reviews may not reflect current operations.
• PATTERN OF PREDATORY UPSELLING: At least 10 independent reviewers describe being quoted prices 3x-10x higher than competitors or actual repair costs, with technicians using scare tactics, false diagnoses, and pressure to sign immediately. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS AND GHOSTING: At least 12 reviews describe missed appointments, cancelled appointments without notice, or complete failure to respond to follow-up calls over days or weeks. This is a critical operational failure pattern.
• FRAUDULENT BILLING ALLEGATION: One detailed review with supporting documentation alleges the company billed for work (seat replacement) that was never performed, confirmed by the plumber himself on a recorded call. A separate reviewer alleges an unauthorized credit card was opened in their name.
• MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM CONCERNS: Multiple reviewers report the membership program was not honored, subscriptions were restarted without consent after cancellation, and membership discounts were not applied when requested.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are all 1-star. The bulk of 5-star reviews cluster around 2024-06-06 with the suspected fake review pattern. Genuine detailed positive reviews are more common in the 2019-2022 range, suggesting a possible quality decline over time.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of a fake review cluster inflating the positive signal — the true operational quality of this company, as reflected by detailed and verifiable negative reviews, is likely worse than even the low score of 38.2 suggests.