Find Nearby Plumbers In Mankato, Minnesota

Jetter Clean demonstrates strong project completion and technical expertise, with all three reviews confirming jobs were finished successfully and efficiently. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by one damaging 1-star review from 2019 describing poor customer service from a staff member named Luke, which directly contradicts the positive experiences in the other two reviews. Pricing appears fair based on one explicit comparison showing better value than a licensed plumber. The limited review volume (only 3 reviews) and significant age disparity (one review from 2017, one from 2019, one from 2024) reduce overall confidence in this score.

• Only 3 total reviews analyzed — insufficient volume for high-confidence scoring
• Significant recency gap: two reviews are 5+ years old (2017, 2019); only one recent review from 2024
• Stark contradiction in professionalism dimension: one 5-star review praising service speed vs. one 1-star review criticizing staff attitude and responsiveness — suggests inconsistent service quality or potential personnel issues
• No mention of pricing in 2 of 3 reviews; pricing score based on single anecdotal comparison rather than explicit quote or invoice transparency
• Limited data on communication, punctuality details, and appearance — inferred from context only

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (n=3) and significant temporal gaps in data. The stark contradiction between positive and negative professionalism feedback suggests service quality may be inconsistent, and the score may not reliably predict future performance without additional recent reviews.

Jerry's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While technicians often demonstrate competence and friendliness (professionalism: 68, experience: 71), the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints (52) and substantial project completion issues (65). Customers frequently report being overcharged, receiving inflated estimates, and experiencing poor follow-through on repairs. The high volume of negative reviews citing communication failures, missed appointments, and incomplete work substantially outweighs positive feedback, resulting in a below-average WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Extensive fake review pattern detected. Approximately 80+ reviews (16% of dataset) contain near-identical or highly repetitive phrasing clustered around June 2-8, 2025, and April 10, 2025. Examples: 'Service response was very quick' (repeated 5 times identically), 'Showed up on schedule did job quick and great outcome!' (repeated 6 times identically), 'Very fast response to call. On time for service. Efficient and knowledgeable repair of problem. Plumber is friendly and direct. This is our second use of Jerry's Plumbing. Will call again' (repeated 4 times identically). Multiple empty reviews (5-star with no text) also present. These appear to be artificially inflated positive reviews.
• SEVERE: Pricing dimension shows overwhelming evidence of overcharging. 98 mentions include: $680 for simple valve replacement, $450 for $198 pressure regulator, $237.50/hour labor rates, $1,150+ water heater installations with hidden fees, $7,000 repipe quotes later found to be $3,500 elsewhere, and systematic refusal to provide itemized estimates. Pattern suggests deliberate opacity in pricing.
• SEVERE: Project completion failures are systemic. Multiple reviews document: incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, no-shows despite scheduled appointments, work left unfinished, incorrect installations (e.g., shower stopcock installed wrong, water heater exhaust never installed), and refusal to honor warranty callbacks. One customer waited 6 months for furnace repair; another had AC disabled during repair.
• SEVERE: Communication and follow-up are critically deficient. Documented issues include: technicians not calling back for weeks, office staff being rude/hanging up on customers, miscommunication between office and field staff, failure to provide promised estimates, and contradictory information given to customers vs. insurance companies.
• MODERATE: Technician quality is highly variable. While some named technicians (Omar, David, John, Zac, Mario) receive individual praise, others are described as incompetent, lazy, or unprofessional. One technician allegedly urinated by customer's front door; another failed to diagnose basic issues.
• MODERATE: Home warranty company relationship issues. Multiple reviews indicate Jerry's was fired by or removed from home warranty provider lists due to poor performance and complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are heavily weighted toward fake 5-star reviews. Authentic negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024 and earlier, suggesting ongoing problems with recent reputation management attempts.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with CAUTION due to extensive fake review inflation in the dataset. The actual score is likely 5-10 points lower when fake reviews are excluded. The HIGH confidence rating reflects data volume, but the presence of systematic review manipulation significantly undermines the trustworthiness of this assessment. Customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews from 2023-2024 (which describe specific, verifiable problems) over recent generic 5-star reviews, and independently verify pricing and warranty terms before engaging this company.

Lowe's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning from 2011 to 2024. While recent reviews (2024) and some older positive reviews praise professionalism, fair pricing, and technical skill, a substantial cluster of negative reviews from 2013–2018 document serious failures in project completion, communication, and diagnostic accuracy. The company struggles with incomplete repairs, missed callbacks, poor follow-through on warranty work, and misdiagnosis of plumbing issues. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented rudeness, lack of communication, and unreliable scheduling. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviews reporting unfinished work, abandoned callbacks, and problems that required other contractors to resolve.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are 6–11 years old (2013–2018), while most recent reviews (2024) are positive. This suggests either significant company improvement or a shift in review demographics. Caution advised in weighting older negative reviews equally with recent positive ones.
• POLARIZED DISTRIBUTION: Reviews cluster into two distinct groups—5-star praise and 1-star condemnation—with few middle-ground reviews. This polarization may indicate service quality varies dramatically by technician or circumstance.
• WARRANTY COMPANY PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews explicitly mention home warranty company referrals. It is unclear whether poor experiences reflect Lowe's Plumbing's quality or friction with warranty company constraints and communication protocols.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews (2014–2016) document lack of callback, poor follow-up, and unresponsiveness. This pattern appears less prominent in recent reviews.
• DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS: Multiple reviews (2016, 2014) report misdiagnosis requiring customers to seek second opinions and additional contractors. This suggests inconsistent technical knowledge among technicians.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent 2024 reviews are uniformly positive and suggest potential improvement, the historical pattern of serious project completion failures, communication breakdowns, and diagnostic errors from 2013–2018 creates significant uncertainty. The company's reliability appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned and whether work is warranty-referred. Prospective customers should request specific technician assignment and verify all work in writing before payment.

Kaduce demonstrates mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is consistently noted as strong—employees are polite, knowledgeable, and communicative. However, project completion is severely compromised by multiple reports of incomplete repairs, failed warranty follow-through, and unresolved issues requiring third-party intervention. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with customers reporting hidden charges, misleading service call fees, and aggressive billing after failed work. Technical skill is evident in diagnostics and problem-solving, but execution and accountability are weak. The company's failure to honor warranty commitments and refund requests significantly undermines trust.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed negative reviews (2021-10-10 and 2020-12-30) describe serious billing disputes, failed repairs, and broken warranty promises. These are not isolated complaints but systemic issues.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple customers report deceptive pricing practices—hidden charges beyond quoted service calls, charges for failed work, and refusal to honor warranty commitments.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: Two reviews explicitly state work was not completed properly and required third-party repair. One customer was charged $800 for a job that was never fixed.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: One review reports no response for over 2 weeks after promising warranty service.
• RECENCY NOTE: Positive reviews are from 2018 and 2021; negative reviews are from 2020 and 2021. Recent pattern suggests ongoing issues.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews praise professionalism and knowledge, but negative reviews describe condescending communication and circular explanations from staff (Jay). This suggests inconsistent service quality or selective professionalism.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and stark polarization between 5-star and 1-star ratings. However, the two negative reviews contain specific, detailed allegations of billing fraud and incomplete work that are corroborated by similar patterns, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated complaints. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects genuine concerns about pricing transparency and project completion reliability despite demonstrated technical competence.

This contractor has a mixed but mostly positive track record across the reviews analyzed. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by two separate no-show incidents with no follow-up communication, which are serious red flags despite multiple reviews praising promptness and courtesy. Project completion is similarly penalized by those no-show events, as failing to appear constitutes a fundamental failure to complete or even begin a job. Pricing and experience dimensions are more consistently positive, with multiple reviewers citing fair, reasonable, and even surprisingly low pricing, and several noting quality workmanship. However, the vast majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with only one review from the past 5 years, which substantially limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review (2020) falls within the past 5 years. The remaining 12 reviews date from 2012 to 2018. This score may not reflect the contractor's current quality or reliability.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2017-12-07 and 2018-05-09) explicitly report the contractor never showed up and provided no call or follow-up. This is a serious reliability concern and has been weighted heavily against professionalism and project completion scores.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Several reviews (e.g., 'the service went great', 'I would rate this company an F') provide no actionable detail and were treated as low-information data points. The F-rating review was counted as a negative signal but could not be scored dimensionally.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 13 total reviews spanning over a decade, the sample size is small and the WW Score should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small and heavily dated review pool, two documented no-show incidents, and only one review from the past five years — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

This contractor shows a stark divide in performance. Two recent reviews (2024) report critical no-show failures with poor communication, severely damaging professionalism and project completion scores. However, three older reviews (2017–2021) praise reliability, fair pricing, efficiency, and quality workmanship. The recency of the no-show incidents is deeply concerning and suggests a recent operational decline. While historical performance was strong, current reliability appears compromised, making this score unreliable for forward-looking decisions.

• CRITICAL: Two recent no-show incidents (Sept 2024, March 2024) represent catastrophic professionalism failures. These are the most recent reviews and directly contradict older positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three positive reviews are 3–7 years old (2017, 2020, 2021). Recent reviews show opposite pattern. This suggests deterioration in service quality or operational changes.
• INCONSISTENCY: Extreme polarity between recent failures and historical praise suggests either: (a) significant recent decline in business operations, (b) staffing/management changes, or (c) scheduling system breakdown. This inconsistency reduces confidence in predicting future performance.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 2 mentions of pricing across 5 reviews. Score is based on minimal evidence.

This score should be treated with caution. While the overall WW Score is 54.3, the recent no-show pattern (2 of last 2 reviews) is a major red flag that outweighs historical positive feedback. Do not rely on this score alone—investigate whether operational issues have been resolved before engaging this contractor.