Find Nearby Plumbers In Minneapolis, Minnesota

Bob's Sewer Service presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. On the positive side, multiple older reviews praise his reasonable pricing, same-day responsiveness, and ability to get jobs done efficiently — with several customers noting repeat use over many years. However, two recent reviews (2022 and 2024) describe serious professionalism failures including rude and offensive behavior, swearing at customers, and getting lost en route. A critical project completion failure is documented in a 2019 review where Bob failed to return calls after a partial fix, leaving the customer without resolution and forcing them to hire a competitor. The recency trend is concerning: the most recent reviews skew negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2022) are both 1-star and describe serious misconduct including offensive personal comments to customers and swearing. Older positive reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: One review explicitly documents Bob failing to return calls after a partial fix, leaving the customer without a completed job. This is a significant project completion failure.
• ATTITUDE/CONDUCT: Two independent reviewers describe Bob as rude, dismissive, and unprofessional in interpersonal conduct — one suggesting possible intoxication. These are serious behavioral flags.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCY CONCERN: One reviewer states Bob was unable to fix a problem that a competitor resolved quickly, and that Bob misdiagnosed the issue. This negatively impacts the experience score.
• REVIEW PATTERN NOTE: Positive reviews are concentrated between 2012–2020 and are generally more detailed and credible. No fake review patterns detected, but the age gap between positive and negative reviews is notable.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the two most recent reviews heavily as they suggest a meaningful decline in professionalism and reliability compared to the contractor's historical performance.

Matt's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and emergency responsiveness, with multiple reviews praising quick service and problem-solving ability. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns across 7 reviews, with customers consistently reporting charges 3–5 times higher than market rates for comparable work. Professionalism is mixed: some reviews highlight excellent customer service and politeness, while others describe unprofessional attitudes and failure to honor commitments (ignored callbacks, work not completed to standard). Project completion shows concerning gaps, including incomplete diagnostics, unleveled installations, and refusal to address defects without additional charges. The stark contrast between 5-star emergency-response reviews and 1-star pricing/completion reviews suggests the company excels in crisis situations but struggles with transparency, fair pricing, and follow-through on complex projects.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 7 of 10 reviews explicitly cite overcharging. Customers report charges of $500–$5,100+ for work competitors quote at $100–$1,500. This is the dominant complaint and suggests systematic overpricing, not isolated incidents.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS TO COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (2020, 2018) report ignored requests for price review/correction and failure to return for callbacks without additional charges.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Incorrect measurements, unleveled installations, misdiagnosis of problems, and incomplete work documented in 2017 and 2018 reviews.
• ATTITUDE CONCERNS: 2017 review describes unprofessional, dismissive attitude from team member 'Josh' when customer raised concerns about costs.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are 3–6 years old (2017–2021); most recent reviews (2024, 2019) are positive. However, pricing complaints span entire timeline (2018–2023), suggesting persistent business model issue.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: Multiple reviews note company charged significantly higher rates to elderly customer and bereaved widow, despite being informed of financial hardship.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence due to consistent patterns across 10 reviews, but the stark polarization (5 five-star vs. 5 one-star) and recency skew suggest the company may have improved emergency response but has not addressed systemic pricing and accountability issues that dominate customer dissatisfaction.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning a 12-year period. Professionalism is a major weakness, with documented failures in communication (no callback on estimate), responsiveness (multiple cancellations), and attitude (refusing to wear booties, walking off jobs, smoking on-site). Project completion scores are mixed—some jobs finished well and on time, but others were abandoned or heavily delayed. Pricing is contested: some reviews praise fair pricing, while a detailed 2014 review alleges excessive hourly charges, inflated truck fees, and difficulty obtaining refunds. Technical work quality appears solid when completed. The business appears to have ceased operations as of 2024, making current reliability impossible to assess.

• CRITICAL: 2024 review indicates business is no longer operating and warns of potential CC fraud—this is a major red flag for current trustworthiness.
• Significant recency gap: most positive reviews are from 2012–2018; most recent substantive negative reviews are from 2022 and 2024.
• Professionalism dimension heavily weighted by severe negative incidents: no-shows, cancellations, refusal to accommodate customer requests, and alleged unethical billing practices.
• One detailed 2014 review provides extensive documentation of alleged billing fraud and difficulty obtaining refunds—this is a serious allegation that significantly impacts pricing and professionalism scores.
• Pattern of communication failures across multiple reviews (no callbacks, cancellations without clear reason).

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 8 reviews with moderate data density, the business appears to be defunct as of May 2024, making the score historically informative only. The wide variance between positive older reviews and negative recent reviews, combined with serious allegations of billing misconduct and operational issues, suggests this contractor is not currently a viable option and should not be hired.

Aqua City Plumbing's WW Score is severely dragged down by an overwhelming and consistent pattern of pricing complaints spanning over two decades, with dozens of reviewers independently describing charges 3–10x higher than competitors for identical work, often targeting vulnerable customers such as elderly women and those in emergency situations. Professionalism scores are mixed: a meaningful subset of positive reviewers praise punctuality, shoe covers, cleanliness, and friendly technicians, but multiple negative reviewers describe rude behavior, failure to show up, and high-pressure upselling tactics. Project completion is similarly split — many jobs were completed satisfactorily, but several reviews document incomplete repairs, callbacks that failed to fix the problem, and work that had to be redone by other contractors. Experience scores are moderate-positive, with some reviewers praising knowledgeable and skilled work, offset by notable failures such as a technician unable to unscrew a faucet cap and a plumber returning three times without resolving a drip.

• PRICING PATTERN — CRITICAL: At least 15 independent reviews across 2001–2025 describe nearly identical overcharging scenarios: refusal to quote over the phone, a ~$79 trip fee, then an on-site estimate 3–10x higher than competitors. This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly describe elderly customers, women alone, and customers in emergency situations being charged egregiously inflated prices with no recourse from the owner.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star average and may reflect incomplete submissions or padding.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2019-06-11 and 2019-04-13) are nearly word-for-word identical, both describing the same incident involving the reviewer's daughter. This appears to be the same person posting twice, not two independent reviewers. Only one was counted.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed reviews are from 2019 and earlier. Only 2 reviews with substantive text are from 2021 or later (one emergency same-day praise, one pricing complaint from 2024). The pricing complaint from 2024 confirms the overcharging pattern persists to the present day.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically name the owner 'Dave' as dismissive, rude, or unapologetic when confronted about pricing. This suggests the pricing practices are intentional and owner-directed, not isolated technician behavior.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: At least 3 reviews describe work that was left incomplete, required a second contractor to finish, or failed shortly after completion (toilet repair, drain repair, water heater follow-up).

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning approximately 24 years and carries HIGH confidence due to the large volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborated reviews — the low score, particularly on pricing, reflects a well-documented and persistent pattern rather than isolated complaints.

McQuillan Home Services presents a deeply polarized review profile. A substantial cluster of recent 5-star reviews praises individual technicians as professional, knowledgeable, and responsive — with same-day or next-day service frequently highlighted. However, an equally substantial and highly detailed body of negative reviews spanning 2016–2025 consistently describes predatory pricing practices, inflated quotes, bait-and-switch tactics, upselling of unnecessary work, and outright misdiagnosis of functioning equipment. Project completion is a significant weakness, with multiple reviewers describing no-shows, repeated rescheduling, abandoned jobs mid-project, and work that failed inspection multiple times. Pricing is the most severely penalized dimension, with dozens of reviewers documenting quotes 2x to 10x higher than competitors for identical work, a non-refundable trip fee used as leverage, and refusal to provide ballpark estimates over the phone. The experience dimension is mixed: individual technicians are often praised for skill and friendliness, but systemic diagnostic failures — including misidentifying working equipment as broken and missing cracked heat exchangers — significantly drag the score down.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW INFLATION: Multiple reviews are exact word-for-word duplicates posted across consecutive dates (e.g., the 'basement drain back-up' review appears identically on 2025-06-09, 2025-06-07, and 2025-06-06; the 'Ron from McQuillan' review appears identically on 2025-06-09, 2025-06-07, and 2025-06-06; the 'Very professional, knowledgeable' review appears identically on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'Professional and knowledgeable' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Good experience. Didn't give my problem a misdiagnosis' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the Logan electrical review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Justin was great' appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the McQuillan Brothers 'sets the standard' review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the Kenny and Logan review appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04). This is a clear pattern of review manipulation and all duplicate reviews have been treated as a single unique review for scoring purposes.
• LARGE NUMBER OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40+ reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in bulk alongside duplicate reviews further suggests coordinated review inflation.
• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: Across more than 30 independent negative reviews spanning 2016–2025, reviewers consistently describe quotes that are 2x to 10x higher than competitors for identical work. Specific documented examples include: $13,999 quoted for a standard water heater replacement; $9,000+ quoted for a boiler that was later fixed for under $1,000; $3,500 in parts quoted at 5–10x retail cost; $1,100 to find a leak later fixed in 30 minutes; $2,500 for a toilet interior replacement that still did not work; $60,000 quoted for a boiler replacement during a polar vortex emergency. This is not isolated — it is a systemic and recurring business practice.
• DIAGNOSTIC FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers across different years allege that technicians falsely diagnosed working equipment as broken or dangerous to generate replacement sales. Specific examples include: falsely claiming a capacitor was bad when the AC only needed refrigerant; claiming a furnace had a cracked heat exchanger when it did not; claiming a boiler had 42 gas leaks based on a misread LEL meter; claiming an AC and boiler needed replacement when both were functioning normally per second opinions; red-tagging a furnace and allegedly misplacing wires during inspection causing new problems.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete, including a gas line project that left a tenant without heat, stove, and dryer for over three weeks; an AC installation with unpatched ceiling holes and missing trim that took months to resolve; a chimney liner replacement where the crew arrived without the liner; and a boiler installation with a cracked unit that took 10+ service visits and months to diagnose.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Numerous reviews describe repeated no-shows, 8-hour arrival windows, last-minute cancellations, and failure to call customers when technicians could not attend. At least one reviewer reports three consecutive no-shows with the same 'family emergency' excuse.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (April–June 2025) are heavily skewed positive and contain the duplicate/blank review patterns noted above. The most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2016–2024. The 2025 positive cluster should be treated with significant skepticism given the duplication evidence.
• VULNERABLE POPULATION TARGETING: Multiple reviewers specifically note that elderly or vulnerable customers (72-year-old mother, 81-year-old mother, senior widow) were charged significantly inflated prices, which reviewers characterize as exploitation.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of coordinated fake review inflation among recent 5-star entries; the true performance score — particularly on pricing and project completion — is likely even lower than calculated, and consumers should seek multiple independent quotes before engaging this company.

Mike's reviews present a deeply mixed picture spanning over a decade. Positive reviews praise his responsiveness, fair pricing, and pleasant demeanor, while several serious negative reviews describe yelling at customers, hanging up on them, using corroded or improperly fitted pipes, and refusing to address post-job issues. Two detailed 1-star reviews from 2012 describe gross negligence findings by other master plumbers, legal disputes, and unprofessional communication. The negative reviews are highly specific and credible, describing distinct incidents with named details, which significantly drags down scores across all dimensions. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers noting fair and transparent quotes, but even this is undermined by one reviewer withholding payment due to unresolved quality issues.

• Two highly detailed 1-star reviews from 2012 describe serious workmanship failures independently confirmed by other licensed master plumbers, including findings of 'gross negligence' and 'cutting corners' — these carry significant weight.
• One 1-star review from 2019 describes a post-job dispute where Mike refused to address a faulty disposal installation and directed the customer to the manufacturer, suggesting a pattern of avoiding callbacks.
• A 2012 negative review describes Mike yelling at a customer and using profanity over the phone — a serious professionalism concern corroborated by a second 2012 review describing similar aggressive phone behavior.
• The majority of positive reviews are older than 5 years (2010–2021), with the most recent being from 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, limiting recency confidence.
• The positive reviews are generally brief and lack specific technical detail, while the negative reviews are highly detailed and specific — this asymmetry increases the credibility weight of the negative reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews appear genuine with varied language, specific incidents, and a range of ratings.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning 2010–2021 with no recent data, and while confidence is MODERATE to HIGH on mention counts, the score should be treated cautiously given the age of the data and the presence of multiple serious, credible negative reviews describing legal disputes and confirmed workmanship failures.