Find Nearby Plumbers In Minneapolis, Minnesota

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to cover multiple distinct businesses operating under similar 'My Plumber' branding across different cities and states, which significantly complicates scoring. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, friendliness, technical knowledge, and fair pricing — with many customers becoming repeat clients. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 35–40 reviews) describe serious failures including no-shows, unreturned calls, warranty non-compliance, work left incomplete after payment, billing disputes, property damage, and in at least one case alleged threats of violence. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while others report unexpected price increases, bait-and-switch billing, and feeling overcharged. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, callbacks ignored, and work that failed shortly after completion.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover multiple unrelated businesses operating under 'My Plumber,' 'My Plumber Inc.,' 'Clog Pro,' 'Precision Plumber Buckeye,' '1 Buckeye Plumbing,' and other names. Scores should not be attributed to any single contractor without filtering by specific business identity.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several reviews from dates 2024-12-11 and 2025-03-11 use nearly identical generic phrasing ('arrived fast,' 'skilled,' 'professional,' 'handled the repair seamlessly') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique identifiers. These are flagged as potentially inauthentic.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives and some negatives.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes alleged threats of violence by an owner (Steve Martin, Arizona). At least two reviews describe property damage (cracked tile, broken bathtub stopper) with no remediation. At least three reviews describe warranty non-compliance and abandoned work after payment.
• NO-SHOW AND RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Approximately 12–15 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments, unreturned calls, or complete failure to follow through on scheduled work — a recurring pattern across multiple named technicians and locations.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 55–60 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total review volume.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to the multi-entity nature of this dataset, the high volume of serious negative reviews, and fake review suspicion, all dimension scores were held conservative per Rule 7.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but LOW entity reliability — the dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses, making this score unsuitable for evaluating any single contractor without first filtering reviews by specific business name, location, and technician.

Noble Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising courteous, punctual technicians and attentive office staff. Project completion scores well overall, with the majority of jobs described as finished efficiently and thoroughly, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, failed repairs requiring return visits, and at least one job that failed city inspection multiple times. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges perceived as excessive, billing for travel time to buy parts, and a $500 charge for a 30-minute repair, pulling the score down significantly. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but offset by documented cases of incorrect parts installed, failed repairs, and work that did not pass inspection. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a consistent pattern of service failures that cannot be ignored.

• 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews from 2013–2016 are labeled 'unknown' with no review text and appear to be placeholder or imported records with no substantive content. These were excluded.
• One review (2014-04-23) appears to describe a medical clinic or urgent care facility, not a plumbing company ('campus,' 'kids,' 'injury,' 'schedule depending on the injury'). This review is almost certainly misattributed or fraudulent and was excluded from scoring.
• A cluster of reviews from 2025-05-10 (approximately 8 reviews posted on the same date, several with no text) raises a mild concern about review manipulation or bulk solicitation, though the dated reviews with text on that day appear genuine.
• Multiple negative reviews describe missed appointments and no-shows (2019-10-03, 2020-05-06, 2024-12-11), suggesting a recurring operational issue with scheduling reliability.
• One detailed negative review (2020-12-22) describes a failed repair, an incorrect part installed, a $750 upsell attempt, and a $300 charge for unresolved work — this is a significant quality and ethics flag.
• One review (2017-11-03) describes a water line replacement that failed city inspection three times due to improper fittings, inconsistent technician assignments, a missed callback appointment, and an unresolved leak — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (2024-09-29, 2-star) raises a specific pricing concern: the customer was charged $250/hr labor rate and billed for over an hour of time during which the technician drove to Home Depot to buy parts. The promised itemized receipt was also never delivered.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2018–2025, with the most recent cluster in 2025. Reviews from 2013–2016 are sparse and mostly text-free. Scoring is appropriately weighted toward the more recent and detailed reviews.
• No strong evidence of fully fabricated bot reviews, but the volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Amazing service!!!', 'excellent job', 'Fast and prompt service') moderately inflates the apparent positivity of the review set.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, ~107 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring negative patterns around missed appointments, pricing transparency, and occasional failed workmanship before making a hiring decision.

BWS receives strong praise from a large volume of recent reviewers for friendly, professional, and knowledgeable technicians — particularly named techs like Brandon, Mike, Jared, Steve, and Erik — which drives solid scores in professionalism and experience. However, a meaningful cluster of detailed negative reviews spanning 2016–2023 describes serious concerns: abandoned or incomplete work, a water heater installation that flooded a basement with no accountability, a tech making false statements to a warranty company, pushy upselling tactics confirmed by the company's own owner, hidden fees and pricing presented only after work was completed, and a pattern of the owner not returning calls when complaints were escalated. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers citing opaque fee structures, surprise charges, and one reviewer explicitly warning of a $450 dispatch fee not listed on the website. Project completion also suffers due to documented cases of unfinished jobs, unresolved damage claims, and failure to follow through on promised callbacks. The high volume of recent 5-star reviews is encouraging but must be weighed against the severity and specificity of the negative reviews, which describe systemic rather than isolated failures.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large number of recent 5-star reviews (2025) are very brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great service by their techs!', 'Mike is the best!!', 'great would hire again'). Several reviews have no text at all (rating only). This pattern warrants caution, though many other recent reviews do include named technicians and specific details, partially mitigating this concern.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2021-07-08 and 2021-07-09 appear to be near-identical submissions from the same customer (Ryan G. / home warranty complaint). Only one was counted in scoring to avoid double-weighting.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2017, 2019, 2020, 2025) describe hidden fees, surprise pricing presented after work completion, and a $450 dispatch fee not disclosed upfront. One reviewer's complaint was validated by the company itself, which issued a partial refund after admitting a pricing error.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: At least two separate reviewers describe a flooded basement after a BWS water heater installation, with the company allegedly refusing to accept responsibility for resulting damage. One reviewer filed a claim against their own homeowners insurance as a result.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2017 (including from a condo association president representing ~8+ owners) describe systematic high-pressure upselling tactics. The company owner acknowledged this in writing but reportedly failed to follow through on promised refunds for many affected customers.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Several reviews describe jobs left unfinished, technicians failing to submit required documentation, and the company not returning calls after issues arose — indicating a recurring pattern of poor follow-through on problem resolution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2016–2023. The 2024–2025 reviews are overwhelmingly positive. It is unclear whether this reflects genuine improvement in company operations or a shift in review management practices. Scores were weighted toward recent reviews but negative patterns were not dismissed.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (75 total) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight — however, the score should be treated with moderate caution due to a credible pattern of serious negative experiences documented across multiple years, a moderate fake-review risk among brief 5-star entries, and unresolved accountability issues that suggest the company's performance may be inconsistent depending on the technician assigned and the complexity of the job.

Falcon Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising technician professionalism and punctuality. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite overcharging, lack of transparency in quotes, and prices substantially higher than competitors. While the owner Wendy and office staff receive consistent praise for responsiveness and customer service recovery, field execution is inconsistent, with some technicians displaying unprofessional behavior. The company's fixed-rate pricing model creates friction when customers discover costs after work begins.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic complaints about high costs appear throughout the dataset. Multiple customers report being charged 2-4x more than competitors for identical work. This is the single largest driver of negative reviews.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Significant variance in technician professionalism and competence. Same company receives 5-star and 1-star reviews for similar services depending on which technician was assigned.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews document missed appointments, late arrivals, and failure to follow up on promised callbacks. This appears to be a recurring operational issue.
• WARRANTY/GUARANTEE DISPUTES: Several reviews indicate the company disputes warranty claims or refuses to honor stated guarantees, creating customer frustration after paying premium prices.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Despite responsive office staff, field technicians frequently fail to communicate delays, provide estimates upfront, or follow through on promised callbacks.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 40-50 reviews contain only ratings with no text or minimal text (e.g., 'A+', 'unknown', '.', 'went well'). These appear concentrated in 2016-2020 period and may inflate positive ratings artificially. However, substantive negative and positive reviews are detailed and credible.
• RECENCY NOTE: Dataset spans 2006-2024. Reviews from 2011-2013 show more consistent positive sentiment. Recent years (2019-2024) show increased pricing complaints and service inconsistency.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company in decline. The HIGH confidence is justified by 568 reviews with substantial detail, but the score masks a critical vulnerability: while Falcon excels at technical execution and responsiveness, the pricing model and inconsistent follow-through create significant customer dissatisfaction. The company appears to rely on owner intervention (Wendy) to recover from service failures, suggesting systemic operational issues. Customers should expect professional work but should obtain detailed written estimates and compare prices with competitors before committing.

Sunrise Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous customers report charges that are 2–9x higher than competitors for identical or similar work, with many describing pricing as exploitative or deceptive. Project completion is generally solid, though some callbacks and follow-up issues are documented. The stark contrast between positive field-level service and negative pricing/billing practices creates a company that delivers good work but at costs many customers perceive as unfair, particularly for emergency or time-sensitive repairs.

• PRICING PATTERN: 68 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Recurring complaints include: charges of $1,200–$2,600 for simple repairs that should cost $200–$400; markups of 300–900% on parts; undisclosed fees and membership charges; and quotes that are 2–9x higher than competitors. This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 80+ recent reviews (June 2025 and May 2025) contain nearly identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend,' 'explained everything clearly') with no specific details about the actual work performed. These cluster heavily in May–June 2025 and lack the specificity and variation of authentic reviews. Confidence in recent 5-star reviews should be treated as LIMITED.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple customers report inability to reach management, no callbacks despite repeated attempts, and unresponsive office staff. At least 12 reviews document failed follow-up, cancelled appointments without notice, and refusal to provide itemized invoices or explanations for charges.
• BILLING DECEPTION: Several customers report being quoted one price verbally and charged significantly more on the invoice; membership fees added without consent; and refusal to provide itemized breakdowns. One customer reports the company deleted a negative Google review.
• RECENCY BIAS: The overwhelming majority of 5-star reviews are from May–June 2025 (80+ reviews), while substantive negative reviews span 2013–2021 with sporadic recent complaints. The recent 5-star cluster appears artificially concentrated and lacks the natural distribution of authentic reviews.
• EMERGENCY PRICING: Multiple reviews document price gouging during emergencies (e.g., $1,400 for 30 minutes of work during a freeze; $2,650 for two quick jobs during a storm). Customers report the company abandons jobs when questioned about pricing.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While most technicians (Andrew, Mitchell, Jeff, Justin) receive individual praise, the company-level billing and customer service practices contradict field-level professionalism, suggesting systemic management issues.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable for assessing field-level professionalism and technical competence (HIGH confidence), but the overall score is heavily depressed by legitimate, well-documented pricing concerns that affect customer value perception. The recent 5-star review cluster (May–June 2025) shows signs of artificial inflation and should be weighted conservatively. Customers should expect professional, timely work but should obtain detailed written quotes from multiple competitors before engaging Sunrise, as pricing appears to be significantly above market rate for comparable services.

Terry Overacker Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with staff consistently praised for friendliness, punctuality, and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a severe and persistent weakness, with numerous customers explicitly stating they felt overcharged, with complaints spanning from 2009 to 2025. The company excels at communication and responsiveness but struggles with transparent pricing and value perception. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show continued pricing complaints alongside positive service feedback, indicating this is an ongoing structural issue rather than a historical problem.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 18 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Complaints include: $800 for $30 part (2024), $190 diagnostic fee (2024), $600 for <30 min work (2023), $328 for 15 min work (2022), $1500+ for drain unclog with questionable extras (2021), $700 for bathtub drain replacement (2021), $495 for ~$50 valve (2019), and multiple 'ridiculously overpriced' complaints spanning 15+ years. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Pricing complaints appear consistently in recent reviews (2024-2025), suggesting the issue persists and is not historical. Two 1-star reviews from April-June 2025 include pricing and service quality issues.
• SERVICE QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Two recent 1-star reviews (April-June 2025) describe inadequate troubleshooting and incomplete problem-solving, suggesting inconsistent technician capability or support.
• ELDERLY VULNERABILITY PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2015, 2021) suggest elderly customers may have been charged excessive amounts for work they did not request or understand, raising ethical concerns.
• LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: Several reviews note diagnostic fees, pre-written estimates, and lack of upfront pricing disclosure, indicating communication gaps around cost.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Many 5-star reviews cluster on 2024-06-09 and 2021-06-10 with minimal detail, though these do contain specific names and scenarios that appear authentic. No evidence of fake reviews detected, but some reviews are very brief.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 54 reviews with strong data across all dimensions. The score is pulled down significantly by a consistent, 15-year pattern of pricing complaints that appear in 33% of reviews and span from recent (2025) to historical (2009) periods. The company delivers competent, professional service but at prices customers perceive as unjustifiably high. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written quotes and be prepared for sticker shock.