Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Paul, Minnesota

Bradley Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across a large review set spanning roughly 2006 to 2025. Recent reviews (2022–2025) are overwhelmingly positive, praising responsiveness, fair pricing, professionalism, and quality workmanship on water heaters, softeners, and filtration systems. However, a substantial cluster of older negative reviews (2013–2020) describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, no-shows, unreturned calls, property damage, hidden fees, and work left incomplete or done incorrectly. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly reporting that work was left unfinished or that the plumber disappeared after partial payment. Pricing scores are pulled down by complaints of undisclosed fees, overcharging, and charges for unauthorized work, despite many recent customers praising affordability. The overall score reflects a business that appears to have improved significantly in recent years but carries a meaningful historical record of serious service failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of nearly identical reviews exist — the 'hose bib' review (2024-09-12 and 2024-09-02) and the 'water softener go-to plumber' review (2023-06-10 and 2022-08-25) appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates, possibly submitted twice or copied. These were counted once each for scoring purposes.
• MULTIPLE STAFF NAMES DETECTED: Reviews reference 'Bradley,' 'Brad,' 'Troy Bradley,' 'Greg Bradley,' 'Greg,' 'Matt,' 'Jeff,' and 'Joe' as the plumber or owner. This strongly suggests either multiple different businesses operating under the 'Bradley Plumbing' name across different states and time periods, or a single business with inconsistent branding. Reviews from 2012–2016 referencing 'North St. Paul' and 'Greg' likely represent a different business or operator than the Arizona-based 'Brad/Troy' reviews from 2019–2025. This significantly undermines the reliability of treating all reviews as one entity.
• TEMPORAL SPLIT — POSSIBLE BUSINESS CHANGE OR OWNERSHIP TRANSITION: Negative reviews are heavily concentrated in 2013–2020, while positive reviews dominate 2021–2025. This could indicate a change in ownership, operator, or business practices, or it may reflect the mixing of two distinct businesses sharing the same name.
• BLANK AND CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contained no text (blank, a single emoji, a period, or 'unknown'). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are strongly positive. If this is the current Arizona-based operation, recent performance appears solid. However, the historical negative record cannot be ignored.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviewers across different time periods explicitly reported that the plumber scheduled appointments and failed to appear without notice, and at least 3 reviewers reported jobs being abandoned mid-project with no follow-up. This is a significant pattern affecting project completion scores.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Multiple older reviews describe property damage (scratched tub, chipped vanity, cracked tile, stained carpet, caulk mess) with no remediation offered, which materially impacts professionalism and experience scores.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to strong evidence that reviews span multiple distinct business entities or operators sharing the 'Bradley Plumbing' name across different states and time periods, the presence of duplicate reviews, a stark temporal split between negative and positive feedback, and serious historical complaints about abandoned work and property damage that cannot be dismissed even if recent performance has improved.

Bob's business shows strong technical expertise and generally responsive service, but is significantly undermined by serious pricing and follow-through concerns. While multiple reviews praise his knowledge, same-day availability, and helpful advice, two critical 1-star reviews document bait-and-switch pricing tactics and failure to resolve problems durably, with poor customer service when callbacks were needed. Positive reviews emphasize affordability, but the negative reviews reveal deceptive billing practices that contradict this claim. Project completion is inconsistent—some jobs hold, others fail within days with no warranty support.

• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUE: Review from 2023-09-29 explicitly documents bait-and-switch billing—customer quoted $150 for floor drain, charged $300 for two separate drains when only one was backed up. This is a material ethical concern.
• PROJECT DURABILITY FAILURE: Review from 2019-05-19 reports basement drain re-clogged within one week of service, customer charged full price again with no guarantee offered. Suggests either incomplete diagnosis or inadequate workmanship.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: Same 2019-05-19 review reports 'extremely rude' behavior when customer called back about failed repair. Contradicts professionalism claims in positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 2+ years old (2019, 2021, 2022). Most recent reviews (2023-2024) include one 5-star but also the critical bait-and-switch complaint from Sept 2023. Trend suggests possible deterioration in service quality or billing practices.
• INCONSISTENT NARRATIVE: Positive reviews describe 'affordable' pricing; negative reviews document aggressive billing tactics. This contradiction suggests selective pricing or targeting of certain customers.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical competence appears genuine, two detailed negative reviews documenting billing fraud and service failure create material trust concerns that outweigh positive sentiment. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this conflict, but potential customers should carefully review the 1-star complaints before engaging this contractor.

Bill Rascher Mechanical has a mixed track record across the reviews analyzed. Older reviews (2009–2015) paint a largely positive picture of responsive, knowledgeable technicians who followed through on jobs and even returned without charge to address minor issues, which lifted the professionalism and experience scores. However, two detailed negative reviews from 2021 and 2023 significantly drag down scores across all dimensions — one describing a technician who left a job incomplete and returned disgruntled, and another describing a lack of pricing transparency, an unexplained invoice, and an aggressive payment timeline. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly flagging charges as high and lacking upfront disclosure of minimum billing policies. Project completion is also penalized due to the 2021 review where the job was left unfinished and the customer had to complete the repair themselves.

• Two reviews contain only a period or the word 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring and may represent low-effort or placeholder reviews.
• The majority of positive reviews are from 2009–2015, making them 9–15 years old. The two most recent substantive reviews (2021 and 2023) are both negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• Recency weighting applied: the 2021 and 2023 negative reviews were given significantly more weight than older positive reviews in scoring.
• Small total review pool (10 reviews, only 8 with usable data) limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the usable review pool is small, the most recent substantive reviews are both negative, and a meaningful portion of 5-star reviews contain no reviewable content, making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.

Bruce Nelson Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, several reviewers praised individual technicians like John and Mike for being thorough, courteous, prompt, and technically capable — including one notable emergency response on the eve of Thanksgiving. However, serious negative reviews describe unprofessional communication from an estimator who cancelled an appointment without notice, a plumber who refused to fix a leaky radiator and suggested the customer watch YouTube instead, double billing at a commercial property, and a sewage overflow caused by failure to scope a pipe before connecting to it. Project completion is particularly concerning, with multiple reviews describing work left incomplete or requiring other plumbers to finish the job. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer found the bill reasonable, another was charged $120 for no work, and a third noted labor charges were low but questioned whether that reflected quality. The overall score reflects genuine strengths in some individual technicians but significant systemic failures in communication, follow-through, and workmanship quality.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review (2022) falls within the past 12 months relative to a typical analysis window. Four of seven reviews are from 2015–2017, which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: Two reviews describe work being left incomplete, requiring other plumbers to resolve issues after Bruce Nelson departed — a direct project completion failure.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: One review describes an estimator (Bob) cancelling an appointment without notifying the customer, and an office manager who was dismissive when the customer raised concerns — indicating potential systemic professionalism issues beyond individual technicians.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: One commercial property review describes double billing and a sewage overflow attributed to failure to scope a pipe before connecting — suggesting a pattern of cutting corners on due diligence.
• SPLIT PERFORMANCE PATTERN: Positive reviews tend to reference specific named technicians (John, Mike), while negative reviews reference estimators and unnamed plumbers — suggesting quality may vary significantly by individual assigned.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review sample of 7, significant recency concerns with most reviews being 5–8 years old, and a stark performance split that suggests inconsistent quality depending on which technician or staff member is assigned — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

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.