Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Paul, Minnesota

Good Guys Plumbing shows strong performance across most dimensions, with particular strength in pricing fairness and technical skill. However, the score is tempered by a serious 2006 complaint involving incomplete work (debris left in valve), poor customer service recovery, and unprofessional conduct by management. Recent reviews (2023–2024) are consistently positive and detailed, praising professionalism, fair pricing, and quick response times. The older negative review is significantly dated but raises concerns about accountability and conflict resolution that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three reviews from 2016 and earlier contain minimal or no usable text ('unknown', '.'), suggesting data quality issues or placeholder entries. These should be disregarded.
• SERIOUS HISTORICAL ISSUE: One 1-star review from 2006 documents a significant service failure (debris left in valve causing malfunction), failure to accommodate customer needs, and alleged unprofessional conduct by owner during BBB complaint process. While dated, this indicates potential systemic issues with quality control and customer service recovery.
• CONFIDENCE MODERATION: The positive recent reviews are genuine and detailed, but the sample size remains small (7 usable reviews). Confidence is capped at MODERATE due to limited mention counts across dimensions.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews with generic praise ('best service', 'nicest people') lack specific technical detail, though the 2024 and 2023 reviews do provide concrete examples (faucet repair, hydrant replacement, response time), suggesting authenticity.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. Recent performance (2023–2024) appears genuinely strong and professional, but the historical 2006 failure and small sample size (7 usable reviews) prevent a higher confidence rating. The score reflects current reputation but does not fully account for the documented service failure and management conduct issue from nearly two decades ago.

Aquarius scores strongly on professionalism, with a large number of reviews explicitly praising friendliness, punctuality, communication, shoe covers, and respectful demeanor from named technicians. Experience and workmanship are also well-supported, with multiple reviews citing knowledgeable technicians who explained systems thoroughly and resolved problems effectively. Project completion is generally positive but is tempered by one detailed negative review describing repeated return visits, property damage, and an unresolved toilet situation, as well as one review citing a complete failure to respond to a service request. Pricing is the weakest dimension: one reviewer explicitly described feeling overcharged with parts marked up over 3x retail and unnecessary labor, while only a small number of reviews mention pricing favorably, pulling the score down significantly. The overall picture is a company with strong front-line service staff but meaningful concerns around pricing transparency and occasional execution failures.

• 14 of 49 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide zero usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their volume slightly inflates the apparent review count.
• The majority of substantive reviews (roughly 35+) are from 2025 and cluster heavily in May–June 2025, with very similar structure: named technician, brief praise, 5 stars. This pattern warrants mild fake-review scrutiny, though the presence of specific technician names and situational details (mobile home installs, specific equipment types) adds credibility.
• Negative reviews are older (2014, 2018, 2019, 2021) but are substantive and detailed. The 2018 review describes property damage, repeated service failures, and unprofessional conduct. The 2021 review describes a complete failure to respond to a quote request. These are weighted less due to recency but are not dismissed.
• One 5-star review (2019) appears to reference 'Roger Vadnais Plumbing' by name rather than Aquarius — this may be a misattributed or cross-posted review and should be treated with caution.
• Recency note: Nearly all positive reviews are from 2025, while all negative reviews are from 2014–2021. This could reflect genuine improvement over time, or it could reflect a review solicitation campaign. Score confidence is held at MODERATE overall due to this imbalance.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for recent service quality based on a strong volume of specific 2025 reviews, but is tempered by a cluster of blank reviews, one potentially misattributed review, and meaningful older negative reviews on pricing and project execution that cannot be fully discounted.

Ready Plumbing has a mixed but generally positive track record across most dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by two serious negative reviews: one describing a contractor who refused to correct substandard sump pump installation work and began ignoring client communications, and another describing work that failed to meet code and was similarly met with refusal to accept responsibility. On the positive side, multiple detailed reviews praise Steve and Willy for punctuality, clear communication, and courteous behavior. Pricing is a relative strength, with several reviewers explicitly noting fair, transparent, and reasonable pricing with no hidden charges. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — while many jobs were completed satisfactorily, two documented cases of incomplete or non-code-compliant work with no remediation significantly lower this score. Experience scores are moderate, with several reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, offset by the two cases of poor workmanship.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star or 4-star ratings and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• One undated review (the final review about sewer drains and repiping) uses highly generic, marketing-style language with no specific details about cost, technician name, or timeline — possible fake or solicited review; treated with reduced weight.
• Two reviews labeled 'Great job! Thanks again' and 'Excellent job' are extremely brief with no supporting detail — these were noted but not used to score any specific dimension due to lack of evidence.
• The most recent substantive negative review (May 2024) describes a serious unresolved dispute involving improper installation, refusal to correct work, and failure to follow manufacturer instructions — this is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• A second serious negative review (December 2016) describes work that failed code inspection, was torn out twice, and resulted in the contractor ignoring all follow-up contact — a pattern of abandonment behavior appears across two separate negative reviews spanning different years.
• The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2015–2017, making them 7–9 years old. Only one clearly dated substantive review is from the past 12 months (April/May 2024), and it is a 2-star complaint. Recency weighting therefore disadvantages the overall score.
• RECENCY WARNING: Most positive reviews are older than 5 years. The most recent datable review with substantive content is a serious complaint from 2024. This raises concern that service quality may have declined over time.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in most dimensions, the heavy age skew of positive reviews, two serious unresolved complaints including one from 2024, and several uninformative filler reviews mean the score should be interpreted cautiously, particularly for project completion and professionalism.

All four reviews consistently praise Rite Way for being courteous, responsive, and reasonably priced, which drives solid scores in professionalism and pricing. Two reviews reference specific positive outcomes — a cost-saving repair on a water heater and same-day service — lending some support to project completion and experience scores. However, the review pool is very small (only 4 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2012 to 2019, with no reviews in the past several years, significantly limiting reliability. Scores are kept conservative given the low volume and age of the data. No negative feedback was present, but absence of complaints cannot be treated as evidence of perfection.

• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — while not conclusive, this warrants caution.
• Review dates range from 2012 to 2019. The most recent review is from August 2019, meaning ALL reviews are more than 5 years old. This significantly reduces the relevance of the score to current performance.
• Review volume is very low (4 reviews total). The WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable with this sample size.
• Some reviews use similarly generic praise ('courteous,' 'responsive,' 'reasonable') across multiple entries, which could indicate a pattern of templated feedback, though specifics in two reviews reduce this concern somewhat.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old, making it a poor indicator of the contractor's current quality or availability.

Armor Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across a small set of reviews, with technicians described as friendly, knowledgeable, and thorough. Project completion is a clear strength, with multiple reviewers noting quick turnaround and complete work, including one case where a faulty prior install was identified and corrected. Professionalism and experience are well-regarded based on specific mentions of technician conduct and technical competence. However, pricing is entirely unmentioned across all reviews, leaving that dimension unscored. All reviews are from 2016–2018, meaning none fall within the past 12 months, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for current performance.

• All 5 reviews are dated between 2016 and 2018 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• Several reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'great job. Quick and complete.' and 'It went well.') with no specific detail, which limits their analytical value.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score carries limited reliability due to a very small and entirely outdated review set (all reviews are 6–8 years old), with no pricing data available and several reviews too vague to provide meaningful signal.

Three of four reviews describe positive experiences with friendly, knowledgeable technicians who explained their work and delivered good results. However, the one negative review is a serious outlier — it details an aggressive, unprofessional response from a technician named Gary, who berated a customer for seeking a more affordable option and demanded they never call again. Pricing is a notable concern: the negative review explicitly describes charges that were more than double a competitor's price, with a questionable $89.95 diagnostic fee for minimal work. The positive reviews are older (2015–2017) and the negative review dates to 2012, so recency weighting is limited across the board. Overall, the score reflects a mixed but cautiously positive picture tempered by a significant professionalism and pricing failure.

• All reviews are more than 7 years old — none fall within the past 12 months. This score should not be treated as reflective of current service quality.
• The three positive reviews are relatively brief and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in their reliability, though they do not appear to be fake.
• One review (1-star, 2012) contains a serious professionalism complaint: a technician verbally berated a customer and told them never to call again — this is a significant red flag regardless of its age.
• Pricing concern flagged: the negative review describes an estimate more than double that of a competitor, plus a disproportionate diagnostic fee. Only two reviews mention pricing, so confidence is LIMITED.

This score carries LOW-to-MODERATE reliability due to a very small review set, all reviews being over 7 years old, and one serious negative incident that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive feedback.