Find Nearby Plumbers In Minneapolis, Minnesota

Hometown Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about costs being substantially higher than competitors—sometimes 2-3x the market rate. Project completion is generally reliable with good follow-through, though a handful of serious incidents (incomplete repairs, warranty disputes, safety issues) create concern. The company shows excellent responsiveness and skill, but aggressive upselling practices and pricing inconsistency undermine overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 15+ reviews explicitly cite excessive pricing, with customers reporting charges 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Multiple complaints about $300-800 for simple installations and $6000 charges when quoted $3000.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Several reviews mention aggressive upselling of unnecessary repairs and membership programs, creating perception of predatory business practices.
• SERIOUS SAFETY/LIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple 1-star reviews document significant failures including gas leaks left unfixed after $500+ charge, broken toilet from snake damage with refusal to take responsibility, and incomplete repairs requiring callbacks.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in customer experience—some report exceptional service while others report negligence (e.g., water left in walls, missing foam insulation, incomplete work).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews cite ghosting on quotes, refusal to take on jobs, and one instance of blocking customer communications.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) show predominantly 5-star ratings with generic praise, while older reviews (2018-2023) contain more detailed negative feedback about pricing and practices. This pattern warrants caution.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Approximately 40+ reviews from June 2025 are suspiciously generic with identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'highly recommend') and lack specific detail. Multiple blank reviews with 5-star ratings also present. This suggests possible review manipulation.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR: Multiple reviews describe owner John as rude, condescending, retaliatory, and willing to report customers to authorities over disputes. One review explicitly states he 'doesn't care about retaining customers' as he plans retirement.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the numerical WW Score of 76.8 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and responsiveness, the company exhibits serious structural problems: systematic overpricing, documented safety failures, aggressive upselling, and potential review manipulation. The recent flood of generic 5-star reviews conflicts with detailed negative feedback from 2018-2023 about pricing and practices. Customers should independently verify pricing against competitors and carefully review the detailed negative feedback before engaging this company, particularly for large projects.

Soderlin demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, knowledgeable technicians (particularly Jeff, Joel, and Chad), and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant and persistent weakness, with numerous reviews explicitly criticizing high costs, flat-fee structures perceived as excessive, and charges that customers felt were disproportionate to work performed. The company shows reliability in emergency response and follow-through, but the pricing concerns substantially lower the overall WW Score despite operational excellence.

• PRICING PATTERN: 67 reviews mention pricing concerns. Negative pricing feedback is consistent across 15+ years of reviews, suggesting systemic pricing strategy rather than isolated incidents. Common complaints: flat fees perceived as inflated, charges 2-3x competitor estimates, $59-$229 trip fees, and lack of transparent itemization.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2022-2016) report poor workmanship by specific technicians (Ken, first plumber in bathroom remodel) leading to callbacks, leaks, and customer disputes. Some reviews praise Jeff/Joel/Chad highly while criticizing other technicians.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ESCALATION: Several reviews (2016, 2009) describe hostile behavior from owner Jason when customers disputed charges or requested callbacks. One review explicitly states Jason became 'incredibly hostile' and refused service.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (2017, 2020, 2012) describe being quoted low estimates verbally, then charged significantly higher amounts on-site, or charged for services not explicitly agreed to.
• RECENT POSITIVE TREND: 95% of reviews from 2024-2025 are 5-star with specific praise. Reviews from 2009-2017 show more balanced criticism. This could indicate genuine service improvement or potential review curation.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Recent reviews (2025, 2024) show very high concentration of 5-star ratings with generic praise ('Great work', 'Excellent service') and minimal detail. However, many also include specific technician names and detailed scenarios, reducing fake review likelihood. Older reviews show more critical balance.
• RECENCY BIAS: 60+ reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), heavily weighted toward 5-star ratings. Historical reviews (2009-2017) contain more balanced criticism and pricing complaints. Current score may not reflect long-term pattern.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable for assessing Soderlin's operational competence and professionalism (HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension (58.0) is the primary driver of the lower overall score and reflects a genuine, persistent customer concern documented across 15+ years. The recent surge in 5-star reviews warrants caution—while they may reflect genuine improvement, the concentration of minimal-detail praise in 2024-2025 suggests possible review selection bias. Customers should expect high-quality work and professional service but should obtain multiple competitive bids before committing, as pricing complaints are substantive and consistent.

Gopher Sewer & Drain demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with most recent reviews (2025) showing consistent 5-star ratings and praise for responsiveness, communication, and skilled work. However, the company has a documented history of serious issues including upselling practices, billing disputes, no-shows, and aggressive owner behavior that significantly impact overall trustworthiness. Project completion shows mixed results with some customers reporting incomplete work or follow-up failures. Pricing is a notable weakness, with multiple complaints about unexpected charges, inflated rates, and aggressive upselling tactics that contradict the fair-pricing claims in positive reviews.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 12 consecutive 5-star reviews from June 2025 with minimal or empty text content (reviews dated 2025-06-09 through 2025-06-02) suggest potential review manipulation or bulk positive submissions. These lack specificity and detail typical of genuine reviews.
• SERIOUS BILLING DISPUTES: Two identical detailed 1-star reviews (2022-07-19 and 2022-07-15) document unauthorized upselling of $900+ hydro-jet service without customer consent, resulting in $1,358 total charge vs. $438 quoted. Customer reports owner Pedro yelled and hung up during dispute resolution and threatened defamation lawsuit.
• OWNER CONDUCT ISSUES: Multiple reviews document aggressive behavior by owner Pedro, including yelling on phone calls, hanging up on customers, and threatening legal action against negative reviewers. One 2019 review quotes Pedro saying 'if you want an argument, you will get a fucking argument.'
• PATTERN OF UPSELLING: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention repeated attempts to upsell additional services (camera inspections, hydro-jetting) after initial service agreement, with some customers reporting pressure tactics and inability to refuse without service guarantees being withdrawn.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: Two separate 1-star reviews document complete no-shows without notification (2023-06-23 and 2021-05-10), indicating scheduling/reliability issues despite positive reviews praising responsiveness.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews report work that failed to resolve the problem (2020-11-18: sewer backed up 5 days later; 2020-08-17: same issue recurred 3 weeks later; 2019-11-22: shower non-functional for 2 months due to broken faucet and no follow-up).
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: At least 3 reviews mention damage to customer property (dented walls, stairway marks, broken faucet, sheetrock damage, storm door damage) with inconsistent accountability.
• RECENCY BIAS: Overwhelming majority of 5-star reviews are from 2025 (most recent 12 months), while serious 1-star complaints span 2013-2023. Recent positive trend may not reflect historical pattern of issues.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews report technicians arriving without advance notice, arriving 3+ hours early/late, or failing to call before arrival despite promises to do so.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2025) show strong professionalism and customer satisfaction, the company has a well-documented history of serious issues including unauthorized upselling, billing disputes, owner aggression, no-shows, and incomplete work spanning multiple years. The recent surge of minimal-detail 5-star reviews raises authenticity concerns. Customers should obtain detailed written service agreements, confirm all charges before work begins, and be aware of documented upselling practices and owner conduct issues before engaging this contractor.

Ken's Sewer Service demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive scheduling, friendly technicians, and courteous communication across the majority of reviews. However, significant concerns emerge around pricing transparency and project completion reliability. Multiple customers report unexpected charges, vague quotes, and incomplete work requiring callbacks or additional services. Experience-level feedback is generally positive, with technicians praised for knowledge and efficiency, but several reviews document misdiagnosis and inadequate problem-solving. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service in recent reviews (2024-2025) contrasts sharply with documented failures in drain cleaning, pipe installation, and follow-up accountability spanning multiple years.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention unexpected charges, quote discrepancies, or price increases after work began. Customers report being quoted one price and charged another, or discovering additional charges mid-service.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2024, 2022, 2021, 2014) document incomplete work, drain clogs recurring within days/weeks after service, and inadequate root removal. One customer paid $600+ across multiple visits for the same issue, later resolved by a competitor.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews (2025, 2024) and older 1-star reviews citing rude owner behavior, incompetence, and lack of accountability. Pattern suggests either significant company changes or inconsistent service delivery.
• SUBCONTRACTOR ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews (2015, 2014) indicate Ken's uses subcontractors but disclaims responsibility for their work. One customer experienced $4,000+ in damage from subcontractor work that Ken's refused to rectify.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Several reviews (2018, 2015, 2015) describe owner 'Ken' as rude, condescending, evasive, and unwilling to stand behind work. One review documents threats of legal action and liens over payment disputes.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 show unusually high concentration of 5-star ratings with repetitive praise of specific technicians (Chris, Angie, George, Diego). While not conclusive, the density and timing warrant caution.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (past 6 months) are uniformly positive, while older reviews (2014-2020) contain serious complaints. This temporal split suggests either genuine improvement or selective review filtering.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while recent performance appears strong, the company's documented history of pricing disputes, incomplete work, and accountability failures creates legitimate concern. The score reflects current data heavily weighted toward recent positive reviews, but customers considering this contractor should carefully review the 2014-2020 complaint pattern and request detailed written estimates with fixed pricing before engaging services.

TJK Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for friendliness, punctuality, and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers explicitly citing high costs, lack of transparent quoting, and perceived overcharging for routine work. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, older reviews reveal a persistent pattern of pricing complaints that have not been fully resolved. The company shows responsiveness and integrity in some cases, but pricing transparency and fairness remain contentious issues that substantially lower the overall score.

• PRICING PATTERN: 13 reviews explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, with complaints spanning from 2013 to 2024. Specific grievances include: $1,400 quote for 10-foot gas line, $814.50 for pinhole repair, $900 for cartridge replacement, $470 for shower cartridge with no itemization, $500 for pinhole repair, $810 for pinhole repair (2 hours at $262/hour), $1,500 quote vs. $300 elsewhere. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2019-2024) report that technicians cannot or will not quote prices over the phone, requiring $55-$60 service calls just to receive estimates. Customers report surprise at final bills that are substantially higher than expected, with poor itemization on invoices.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: At least 2 reviews (2024, 2024) describe aggressive upselling behavior, with technicians pushing additional work despite customer objections. One customer reported the plumber 'wouldn't let it go' and continued pushing more expensive work.
• CALLBACK/WARRANTY ISSUE: One 2019 review reports that TJK refused to return for a backup sump pump failure within 2 weeks, despite the customer having paid $2,500 for installation of both pumps. Customer felt abandoned as a loyal repeat customer.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE: One 2019 review reports 'very uncooperative customer service' with unwillingness to have technician call back or review photos of leaking pipe.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024-2025, past 12 months) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal pricing complaints. Older reviews (2018-2023) contain more balanced criticism. This suggests either improved practices or potential selection bias in recent reviews.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING PHILOSOPHY: One 2019 review criticizes the company's stated philosophy of 'full replace rather than repair,' with customer finding another plumber to repair the same issue for $300 vs. $1,500 quote.
• INVOICE CLARITY: Multiple reviews note lack of itemization on invoices, making it difficult for customers to understand cost breakdown and verify charges.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions based on 51-62 mentions each. However, the score is substantially depressed by a persistent and well-documented pricing problem affecting 28 reviews with MODERATE confidence. The company excels in professionalism, responsiveness, and technical quality, but systematic overpricing and poor quote transparency are significant, recurring issues that justify the lower overall score. Recent positive reviews suggest possible improvement, but the historical pattern is too consistent to ignore.

Steve demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and friendly demeanor across most reviews. His technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented with high marks for workmanship. However, project completion is significantly hampered by multiple documented cases of incomplete work—notably two major sewer line jobs where he lacked proper equipment and charged full price despite failing to finish, plus a toilet repair that provided no actual solution. Pricing is generally fair and transparent, though some customers report feeling misled when incomplete work was charged at full rates. The score reflects strong fundamentals undermined by critical failures in job completion.

• CRITICAL: Multiple documented instances of incomplete project work (3 reviews detail jobs Steve could not finish but charged full price for). This is a major red flag for reliability.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: Two reviews (2014 and 2016) describe unprofessional behavior including dismissive attitude, inappropriate personal comments about neighbors, and disrespect for customer property. One customer reported misogynistic comments blaming female family members for sewer problems.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Review from 2023-06-10 reports $350 charged for sewer line work that was not completed due to lack of equipment. Review from 2024-09-28 describes similar issue where Steve's equipment was inadequate and another company had to finish the job. Review from 2018-07-12 describes toilet repair that failed to solve the actual problem.
• FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Review from 2015-07-23 reports Steve refused to honor promised Angie's List discount and would not return calls.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only punctuation marks (2017-06-18, 2017-05-23, 2016-05-18) or single words ('unknown', 'excellent') with 5-star ratings. One review from 2024-06-09 is nearly identical to one from 2014-05-05 (same wording about 'punctual every time', 'fair pricing', 'super nice guy'). These reduce confidence slightly but do not invalidate the overall analysis.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2012-2017 (older than 7 years). Recent reviews (2024) show mixed results with one major failure. Older positive reviews may not reflect current service quality.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. While Steve excels in professionalism and expertise, the documented pattern of incomplete sewer line work—particularly in recent reviews—represents a serious reliability issue that directly contradicts the high volume of positive historical reviews. Customers considering major sewer work should be aware of the specific risk of incomplete job completion and should verify equipment capabilities before hiring.