Find Nearby Plumbers In Rochester, Minnesota

First Class Plumbing shows strong technical skill and experience (85/100), with multiple reviews praising workmanship quality and problem-solving ability. Pricing is fair and transparent (82.5/100), with customers noting competitive rates and willingness to work with payment plans. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by one severe incident involving owner profanity toward customers and a critical failure case where incomplete work caused $1,230 in additional damage. Project completion is inconsistent, with excellent follow-through in most cases but a catastrophic failure in the 2024 toilet repair. The 2024 negative review is recent and detailed, contrasting sharply with older positive reviews, suggesting potential service quality decline or inconsistency.

• CRITICAL: Most positive reviews are 4-9 years old (2013-2021); most recent review (2024-10-10) is severely negative with specific, verifiable damage claims
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 reviews from past 3 years; 1 is 1-star with detailed allegations of incomplete work and owner misconduct
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2015 review documents owner using profanity with customers and refusing to discuss damage; this is a serious character/conduct issue
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: 2024 review alleges band-aid repair (glue around toilet base) instead of required toilet replacement, causing water damage to unit below and requiring $1,230 corrective work
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (mostly pre-2022) and recent 1-star reviews citing serious failures; suggests either service degradation or inconsistent quality across team members
• CALLBACK FAILURE: 2024 review explicitly states contractor 'never showed up' when called to address recurring leak one month after initial repair

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical reviews are strong, the recent 2024 negative review is detailed, specific, and contradicts the positive trend; it alleges serious professional failures (incomplete work, owner misconduct, no-show callbacks) that directly undermine confidence in current service quality. The 9-year gap between most positive reviews and recent negative reviews suggests potential service decline. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying current ownership/management before hiring.

Action Plumbing and Heating has a mixed but generally positive track record across its review history. Professionalism scores reasonably well, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication — however, this is offset by serious complaints including a misdirected appointment, a technician leaving a mess, and a plumber who failed to take responsibility for damage caused on the job. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while a few reviewers noted fair or competitive pricing, multiple negative reviews describe significant overcharging, undisclosed cost increases, non-itemized receipts, and a charge to fix a technician's own mistake. Project completion is similarly mixed — several jobs were completed quickly and correctly, but there are documented cases of incomplete work, a sink requiring three return visits, broken equipment left unresolved, and old pipes left in place after a full repipe job. Experience scores moderately, with standout positive examples such as Kyle's thorough boiler zone diagnosis and the creative wye joint repair, but dragged down by the stripped anode rod bolt, the broken tankless water heater, and the poorly installed kitchen sink.

• Two reviews consist only of a period ('.') with no substantive content — these were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• One review ('unknown') and one review ('Great') contain no actionable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2011–2022. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting is limited and the current service quality may differ from historical patterns.
• The 2023-12-15 review raises a concern about Action Plumbing routing calls to a third-party contractor (JT Plumbing) without customer disclosure — this is a significant transparency and accountability flag.
• The 2012 review describes a highly detailed and serious pattern of misconduct including broken equipment, unauthorized placement of a water heater, inflated billing with no itemization, and unfinished work. This is a major project completion and pricing red flag.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several older 5-star reviews are generic and lack specifics. These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews spanning over a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews, the presence of several content-free submissions, and a pattern of serious negative incidents that suggest inconsistent service quality depending on the technician or job type.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers praising promptness, communication, mask-wearing, and considerate behavior — including one plumber driving back to retrieve protective sheets for carpets. However, pricing is a serious concern: two reviews explicitly describe feeling overcharged, with one reviewer paying $351 to fix a drip and another paying over $1,400 for relatively minor work, dragging the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed — most jobs appear to have been finished, but the faucet review reveals incomplete work (drain not replaced) and a service manager who failed to follow up for over a week. Experience scores moderately, as most technical work was completed correctly, though the faucet diagnosis taking 1.5–2 hours for a relatively simple problem raises questions about efficiency.

• Two of the six reviews are from 2017 and one from 2020 — only one review (2022) falls within the past 3 years, meaning the dataset is largely outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• Three generic 5-star reviews (2017 and 2020) contain limited specifics and could reflect satisfied but low-detail customers; they are not flagged as definitively fake but carry low evidentiary weight.
• The 1-star review describes a pattern of poor follow-through by management (repeated unanswered calls, broken callback promise), which is a notable operational red flag beyond just pricing.
• Total review count of 6 is very low — the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews, the majority of which are over 5 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

Mr. Rooter Rochester receives consistently positive marks for individual technician professionalism — many reviews praise specific plumbers like Derek, Trevor, Daniel, and Tyler for being courteous, prompt, and communicative. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern, with multiple reviewers across many years describing charges as dramatically inflated, hidden, or misrepresented, including a $933 overcharge allegation, a $1,100 quote to unclog a toilet, and a $640 quote for a sub-hour job. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed efficiently, there are notable failures including an abandoned snake in a sewer line, a drain that re-clogged the next day with no refund honored, a safety callback that was canceled, and a technician who ghosted a customer for two months. Experience scores moderately well based on positive reviews citing knowledgeable technicians, but is dragged down by documented cases of incorrect diagnoses, unnecessary work that created new problems, and a plumber who failed to identify a simple unsealed pipe. The overall picture is a company with capable field staff but systemic issues around pricing transparency, accountability, and follow-through.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent star average.
• Several 5-star reviews from the same date clusters (e.g., 2025-06-04, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-04-10) with minimal or generic text may suggest coordinated or incentivized review activity. Confidence in the positive review cluster is reduced.
• One review (2025-03-11) reads like a templated marketing description ('arrived promptly, diagnosed quickly, left everything spotless, fair pricing') with no specific details — possible fake or solicited review.
• Pricing complaints span from 2014 to 2025, indicating a long-standing and systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• A serious allegation of fraudulent billing (charging $933.12 after quoting ~$158) was reported in 2023 and was not rebutted in any visible response.
• A 2023 review alleges the company broke items in the customer's home, ghosted them for two months, and refused accountability — a significant professionalism and project completion failure.
• A 2016 review alleges a promised refund was never delivered nearly a year later, suggesting poor management accountability.
• Recency note: The majority of negative reviews with substantive detail are from 2018–2024. Positive reviews dominate 2025 but many lack detail, which limits their evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of multiple no-text 5-star reviews, possible review solicitation patterns, and a stark divide between glowing individual technician praise and serious systemic complaints about pricing, accountability, and project follow-through.

Superior Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning a 12-year period. While older reviews (2011–2014) consistently praise professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing, recent reviews (2019–2023) reveal serious concerns about hidden fees ($99 destination charges), incomplete work requiring callbacks, poor workmanship (water leaks after reinstallation), and aggressive billing practices. The company appears to have declined in service quality and pricing transparency over time. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of personal phone calls during work and incomplete cleanup. Pricing is heavily penalized by multiple complaints of unexpected fees and inflated charges. Project completion suffers from incomplete work and warranty disputes.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8+ years old (2011–2014). Recent reviews (2019–2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting significant service degradation.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple recent reviews cite hidden or unexpected charges ($99 destination fee, inflated labor hour billing, aggressive upselling tactics). This pattern suggests systematic pricing opacity.
• QUALITY REGRESSION: Recent reviews document incomplete work (customer had to reinstall appliances, clean up), water leaks after service, and lack of follow-through on warranty claims.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Two reviews are extremely vague ('Very good' and 'unknown'), limiting analytical value but not indicating fakery.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE: One detailed 2012 review documents warranty claim denial despite stated 90-day coverage, suggesting systemic accountability issues.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to the stark temporal divide in review quality and the clear pattern of service degradation over time; recent reviews are more reliable indicators of current performance than older ones, and the consistent negative themes around pricing and completion in 2019–2023 reviews warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor.

Both available reviews are 1-star and describe the same core failure: the contractor visited or was contacted for a bid, promised follow-up, and then went completely silent — not returning texts, emails, or calls. This represents a severe breakdown in both professionalism and project completion (specifically follow-through on commitments). No work was ever started or completed in either case, and no pricing or workmanship data is available. Scores for professionalism and project completion are near the floor due to explicit, consistent complaints about unresponsiveness and failure to deliver on stated commitments.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews describe an identical failure pattern (no follow-up after site visit or bid request), which is consistent with a systemic responsiveness problem rather than isolated incidents.
• No data exists for pricing or experience dimensions — these cannot be scored.
• Both reviews are from mid-2021, making them over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess whether behavior has changed.
• The small review count prevents fake review detection analysis — patterns cannot be assessed with only 2 data points.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both from 2021, covering only 2 of 4 dimensions — treat any conclusions as highly preliminary and seek additional recent references before hiring.