Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Moines, Iowa

David and American Plumbing receive consistently strong praise across professionalism and experience dimensions, with multiple reviewers explicitly highlighting his deep knowledge, patience, and ability to source rare or vintage plumbing parts that competitors could not find. Several reviewers describe successful project outcomes — including same-day fixes, correct part identification from a photo, and long-term repeat satisfaction spanning decades — supporting a solid project completion score. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews, both implying good value (one noting savings versus buying online), but the limited data warrants a conservative score with low confidence. The overall picture is of a highly skilled, personable specialist with a loyal customer base, though the small review pool and age of several reviews temper the reliability of the final score.

• Only 7 total reviews — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.
• Several reviews are significantly dated: 4 of 7 reviews are from 2019 or earlier, with two from 2015 and 2017. Recent performance (past 12 months) is represented by only 2 reviews (April 2024 and March 2024).
• All reviews are 4 or 5 stars with no negative or mixed feedback present. While this may reflect genuine quality, the absence of any critical reviews in a dataset spanning nearly a decade warrants mild caution.
• Some reviews use enthusiastic, superlative language ('GOAT', 'jewel', 'treasure', 'dying breed') but most include specific, verifiable details (part types, dates, named individuals, locations) which reduces fake review suspicion. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• Project completion score is based on indirect evidence — reviewers describe successful outcomes at a retail supply store context, not a traditional contractor job completion scenario. Interpret with appropriate context.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability overall — the two most recent reviews (2024) are detailed and credible, but the small total sample size, predominance of older reviews, and absence of any critical feedback limit the confidence with which this score can be generalized to current performance.

The majority of recent reviews (2024) paint a consistently positive picture of Norris Plumbing, with Kyle specifically praised for clear communication, clean workmanship, transparent multi-option quoting, punctuality, and technical thoroughness across a variety of plumbing jobs. Pricing is repeatedly described as reasonable, competitive, and fair, contributing to a strong Price Friendly score. Project Completion scores well overall, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished properly and follow-through was solid. However, a 2013 one-star review describes a serious complaint — a technician (Jason Norris) allegedly left debris and waste under the home after fixing a clog and then refused to take responsibility — which meaningfully penalizes the Project Completion and Professionalism dimensions despite its age.

• One significant negative review (1-star, dated 2013) describes alleged negligence and poor accountability: debris left under the home after pipe repair, and refusal to address the issue. While over 10 years old, it involves a named individual (Jason Norris) and a specific incident, lending it credibility.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review is from April 2013 — more than 11 years before the most recent reviews. All positive reviews are from early 2024. The business may have changed personnel or ownership since then, but this cannot be confirmed from the reviews alone.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The positive reviews vary in length, detail, and specificity (named technician Kyle, specific jobs described, unique phrasing). No strong indicators of fabricated reviews detected among the 2024 batch.
• Small sample size (7 reviews total) limits overall reliability. Scores should be treated with caution until more reviews are available.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small but detailed and recent review set; the single negative review is old and may not reflect current operations, but it cannot be dismissed entirely and has been factored into the scoring accordingly.

Des Moines Drain & Sewer demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, with many customers praising quick response times and effective problem-solving. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by multiple documented instances of poor customer service, lack of protective measures (tarps/towels) during work, property damage, and dismissive behavior from ownership when complaints were raised. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service in many cases contrasts sharply with documented failures in communication, damage mitigation, and accountability. Recent reviews (2021-2023) show both exceptional 5-star ratings and severe 1-2 star complaints, indicating ongoing operational inconsistency.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2023-02-23, 2015-10-12) document serious professionalism failures including property damage, lack of protective measures, and dismissive/rude owner behavior. These are specific, credible complaints with corroborating details.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Multiple reviews mention lack of tarps/towels during drain work causing mess/damage. This suggests a systemic operational issue rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2022. The most recent reviews (2023) include both a 5-star and a severe 1-star complaint, suggesting inconsistent service quality.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Two separate reviews document Paul (owner) being dismissive, rude, and refusing to take responsibility for damage. This is a significant red flag for accountability.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several reviews contain generic praise without specific details (e.g., 'honest people,' 'true iowa nice'), but these are balanced by highly specific negative reviews with documented evidence, so fake review risk is LOW.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and often delivers good results, the documented pattern of professionalism failures, property damage, and poor accountability significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. Customers should be aware of inconsistent service quality and the risk of inadequate protective measures during work.

Kriens demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality and courteous communication, supported by multiple positive mentions of prompt response and friendly demeanor. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with customers noting good value relative to market rates. However, project completion shows significant weakness: while most jobs are finished, there are documented issues with follow-up on callbacks, incomplete aesthetic finishing, and one critical no-show appointment that damaged trust. Technical experience is solid for standard work, though the sump pump recommendation failure and incomplete drainage finishing suggest occasional gaps in quality control.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 9 reviews are from 2011-2012 (12+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2015-2017. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: One review explicitly states 'would not follow up after repeated calls' regarding a defective pump recommendation. Another review documents a no-show appointment with late notification. These are serious professional failures.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: Customer reported purchasing a 'bad sump pump based on their recommendation' and work that 'did not look neat or finished when done,' suggesting technical judgment or finishing standards may be inconsistent.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Two reviews ('As promised' and 'unknown') provide no usable detail and appear to be placeholder or incomplete entries.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (mostly 2011-2012) and small sample size. The moderate confidence reflects conflicting signals: strong professionalism and pricing scores are undermined by documented project completion failures and lack of recent reviews to confirm whether issues have been resolved.

Metro-Rooter generally earns positive marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers citing punctuality, friendliness, and helpful communication from technicians like Tom and Terry. Pricing is viewed favorably by most who mentioned it, with references to affordability and no weekend surcharges, though one reviewer noted the price felt high. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: one reviewer experienced a significant failure where a leaking pipe was not fully resolved and three consecutive follow-up appointments resulted in no-calls and no-shows, which meaningfully drags this score down. Experience scores moderately well, with technicians demonstrating problem-solving ability and sharing useful homeowner tips, though the dataset is too old and sparse to draw strong conclusions.

• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews are significantly older than 1 year; only 2 reviews are from 2019–2020, and most date back to 2005–2018. Recency is very low and current service quality cannot be reliably inferred.
• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great!!! Will hire them again.', 'Went well and very quickly', 'Prompt, professional, and thorough.') with no specific details, limiting their scoring value.
• The one negative review (2018) describes a serious project completion failure — repeated no-call/no-show follow-ups after incomplete work — which is weighted heavily against the project completion dimension despite being a single review.
• Total usable review count is low (12 reviews with content), and the dataset spans nearly 15 years, making trend analysis unreliable.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small and heavily dated review set, two unusable reviews, and a critical project completion failure that is difficult to contextualize without more recent data.

The majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians, with multiple reviewers noting attentiveness and responsiveness even on weekends. However, one detailed 1-star review significantly tempers the scores, describing poor workmanship, unfinished work, a return visit that created additional damage, and aggressive payment demands including a lien threat — all serious red flags across professionalism, project completion, and experience. Pricing feedback is sparse but leans positive, with one reviewer calling costs reasonable. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to the explicit account of abandoned and defective work. The overall picture is a contractor with generally satisfied customers but at least one documented serious failure that cannot be dismissed.

• One 1-star review describes a severe workmanship failure: improperly glued shower drain pipe, a required callback that worsened the problem, refusal to return without full payment, and a lien threat — this is a significant negative signal.
• Two reviews are from 2018, making them over 5 years old. The negative review is also from 2018, so recency weighting reduces its direct impact on current performance but it cannot be ignored as a pattern risk.
• The positive reviews, while generally credible, are somewhat generic in places (e.g., 'excellent service,' 'very pleased') with limited technical specifics. No fake review pattern is definitively detected, but a few reviews lack enough detail to be fully weighted.
• Only 6 total reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review sample of 6, the presence of one serious negative review describing workmanship and payment conduct failures, and the age of two reviews (2018); the score should be treated as directionally useful but not definitive.