Find Nearby Plumbers In Brooklyn Park, Minnesota

Jay demonstrates strong technical expertise and consistently delivers quality workmanship, with multiple reviews praising his skill and problem-solving ability. His pricing is notably fair and transparent, with several customers highlighting economical solutions and estimates that were met or beaten. Project completion is reliable, with jobs finished efficiently and to specification. However, professionalism is slightly tempered by one 2005 review indicating he became angry when a problem arose, suggesting occasional difficulty managing customer relations under stress. The majority of positive feedback is from 2009–2013, with limited recent data.

• Most reviews are older than 10 years (2005–2013); only one review date is unknown. Recent performance data is absent.
• One negative review (2005) explicitly mentions loss of professionalism when encountering a problem, contrasting sharply with otherwise uniformly positive feedback. This suggests potential inconsistency in customer service under pressure.
• The 2014 review contains no text ('unknown'), reducing usable data from that entry.
• All dated reviews are 5-star except one 3-star; while not necessarily fake, the lack of mixed feedback across a 10-year span is unusual and may indicate selection bias in review collection.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias—most reviews are 10+ years old, and current performance cannot be reliably assessed. The professionalism dimension is supported by adequate mentions but is undermined by one documented incident of anger, suggesting the score may be optimistic for present-day service quality.

Goss Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical skill across positive reviews, with punctuality, responsiveness, and fair pricing explicitly praised. However, a severe 2022 review detailing multiple missed appointments, no-shows, and complete communication breakdown significantly impacts project completion reliability. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong capabilities undermined by documented service failures; the contractor shows inconsistency in follow-through and accountability. With only 4 reviews total and one highly negative outlier from over 18 months ago, confidence remains moderate pending more recent data.

• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2022 (nearly 2 years old); two others from 2020-2021. Only one review from 2024. Recent performance trend is unclear.
• SEVERE SERVICE FAILURE: The 2022 review documents systematic communication breakdown, missed appointments, no-shows, and failure to respond to multiple voicemails. This is a critical red flag for project completion reliability.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Scores lack statistical robustness and may not represent current operational standards.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Three 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star review suggests either significant service variability or a major operational issue that may have been addressed. Unclear which.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant recency gap (most reviews 2+ years old), and one documented severe service failure that creates high volatility. The score reflects historical performance but does not reliably predict current service quality without more recent reviews.

Grabow Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across multiple reviews. However, a severe 2018 incident involving a basement flood causing ~$18,000 in damage, combined with the company's refusal to accept responsibility, significantly impacts the project completion score. While most reviews are positive and highlight quality workmanship and fair pricing, the catastrophic failure and liability dispute create substantial risk. The company's longevity and generally satisfied customer base are offset by the magnitude and unresolved nature of the major incident.

• CRITICAL: Major liability incident in 2018 — customer reports two separate basement floods allegedly caused by Grabow's work, with the second incident resulting in ~$18,000 damage. Company denies responsibility despite inability to explain the leak. Customer pursuing legal action.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2012–2016). Only one review from past 5 years (2021). The 2018 flood incident is more recent than most positive reviews, suggesting potential deterioration in quality or accountability.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEW: One review marked 'unknown' with no text content — excluded from analysis but noted.
• PATTERN: Five consecutive 5-star reviews with minimal detail (2012–2016) lack specificity, though they do contain some concrete details (names, timeframes) that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to the severe unresolved liability incident in 2018 and the age of most positive reviews; the WW Score reflects historical satisfaction but does not adequately capture the risk posed by the documented major failure and company's refusal to accept responsibility.

Kidd Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising workmanship quality and timely job delivery. Pricing is consistently noted as fair and competitive, often significantly lower than competitors. However, professionalism scores are pulled down substantially by one detailed 2021 review documenting poor communication, lack of follow-up, and dismissive attitude from Russell, which directly contradicts the reliability claims in other reviews. The company shows inconsistency in customer service quality across different interactions.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2019 (5–8 years old). Only 2 reviews from 2021 onward, with the most recent positive review from April 2024 but the most recent negative review from December 2021. Older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: One detailed negative review (Dec 2021) explicitly documents poor communication and unprofessional behavior from Russell, directly contradicting the 'reliable' and 'professional' claims in other reviews. This suggests inconsistent service quality or potential personnel issues.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use very similar phrasing ('amazing,' 'highly recommend,' 'the only plumber to use') with minimal specific technical detail, though the 2019 and 2017 reviews do provide concrete examples (pricing comparisons, specific work done), reducing but not eliminating concern about authenticity.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (most data is 5+ years old), a documented professionalism failure in 2021 that contradicts other claims, and a small sample size (7 reviews). The WW Score reflects historical strength in technical work and pricing, but current reliability is uncertain given the communication issues documented in the most recent negative review.

Walsh Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with multiple long-term customers praising expertise and work quality. However, professionalism and pricing consistency are significant concerns. Two recent negative reviews (2022, 2020) document poor communication, unresponsiveness, and failure to honor callbacks, while a 2011 review alleges substantial overcharging on labor despite a verbal quote. Positive reviews emphasize promptness, skill, and honesty, but the pattern of service failures and pricing disputes creates material risk. The company's strength lies in technical execution when engaged, but customer service and transparency require improvement.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2011-2018). Recent reviews (2020, 2022) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality decline.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Two separate reviews document failure to return calls/respond to messages after initial contact, indicating systemic communication breakdown.
• PRICING DISPUTE: 2011 review alleges significant overcharge ($525 vs. $300 quoted) on straightforward labor. 2022 review mentions 'too payment' (likely typo for 'too much payment'). Pattern suggests pricing transparency issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2020 review explicitly states 'shotty job' on shower repair with no refund issued despite follow-up attempts.
• INCONSISTENT NAMING: Reviews reference both 'Kevin' and 'Leo' as owners/primary technicians—unclear if same person or different staff members, which complicates assessment.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: 2015 review states 'See previous comment' with no substantive content—appears to be placeholder or duplicate.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal bias (most positive reviews are 7+ years old) and documented service failures in recent years; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence between historical long-term customer loyalty and recent communication/quality breakdowns.

Sabre demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive, courteous technicians (Nick, Justin, Austin, Mike S., Jason frequently praised), supported by 48 mentions across recent reviews. Technical experience is solid with 28 mentions of knowledgeable, efficient work. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by recurring warranty disputes, installation defects (soldering failures, wiring errors, blocked coils), and poor follow-through on new construction work—35 mentions reveal patterns of incomplete inspections and refusal to honor warranty obligations. Pricing is a major weakness (12 mentions): customers report hidden charges, inflated trip fees ($600 minimums, $250/hour rates), and bait-and-switch pricing ($292 quoted vs. $550 billed). Multiple reviews from 2013–2020 document systemic issues with new-build installations that required 6+ service visits to resolve. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show improvement in service quality but persistent pricing complaints and warranty denial.

• CRITICAL: Systematic warranty denial pattern. Multiple customers (2015–2025) report Sabre refusing to honor 2–5 year warranties on parts/labor, particularly for new construction installations. This suggests either deliberate policy or systemic training failure.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Recurring defects in new-build HVAC/plumbing installations (2013–2020): exposed wires, unseated fuses, blocked evaporator coils, wiring reversed, soldering failures, exhaust vents left taped inside units. Biannual maintenance plans failed to catch these issues, suggesting inadequate technician training or inspection protocols.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: 12 mentions of pricing problems including hidden charges, trip fee inflation, and quoted-vs-billed discrepancies ($292→$550, $125→$600). Suggests inconsistent quoting practices or deliberate upselling.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE DETERIORATION: 2023–2024 reviews report unprofessional phone interactions, discriminatory treatment (1 review alleges bias based on ethnicity/neighborhood), and refusal to service jobs previously completed by company. Contrasts sharply with positive 2024–2025 reviews, suggesting recent management changes or inconsistent staff training.
• RESPONSIVENESS GAPS: Multiple older reviews (2014–2017) report no callbacks, missed appointments, and week-long delays. Recent reviews show improvement, but pattern suggests systemic communication issues in past.
• RECENCY BIAS CONSIDERATION: Most negative reviews are 2013–2020 (older installations); most positive are 2024–2025 (recent service calls). Company may have improved operations, but warranty disputes and pricing complaints persist across all time periods.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: 3 reviews with minimal/generic text ('Awesome guy', '.', 'unknown') and 2 blank reviews. However, majority of reviews contain specific details, technician names, and concrete examples, reducing overall fake review risk.

This WW Score of 73.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent professionalism and experience scores are solid (based on 48 and 28 recent mentions), the score is significantly depressed by persistent pricing concerns and a documented pattern of installation defects and warranty denial spanning 12+ years. The company appears to have improved customer-facing service (2024–2025), but structural issues with new-construction work quality and warranty practices remain unresolved. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes, verify warranty terms in writing, and request independent inspections of new installations before accepting work.