Find Nearby Plumbers In Woodbury, Minnesota

GT Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for friendly demeanor, responsiveness, and communication. Technical expertise is evident through customer testimonials highlighting skilled problem-solving and knowledge. However, one significant 1-star review from 2019 describing incomplete work and lack of proper tools substantially impacts project completion confidence and overall score reliability. Pricing feedback is limited to two mentions of fair pricing, insufficient for robust assessment. The majority of reviews are older than 2 years, which limits recency weighting.

• One severely negative review (1-star, 2019) describing incomplete work, lack of tools, and worsened conditions — this is a critical outlier that contradicts the pattern of 5-star reviews and suggests either a serious service failure or a fundamentally different experience.
• Most reviews are 4+ years old (2017-2020); only 2 reviews from 2022-2023. Recency is limited and may not reflect current service quality.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions — insufficient data for confident assessment.
• Project completion dimension has only 3 mentions and includes the negative review, creating high variance and uncertainty.

This score should be treated with caution due to the presence of one severe negative review contradicting otherwise positive feedback, limited recency of most reviews, and insufficient data on pricing and project completion. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong professionalism but is tempered by completion concerns and age of data.

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.

Professionalism received mixed but generally positive signals across all three reviews: two reviewers praised promptness and courteous service, while the third described a scheduling error that caused a missed appointment window — a meaningful reliability concern. Pricing was mentioned only once, described as 'reasonably priced,' yielding a conservative limited-confidence score. Project completion is tempered by the scheduling failure in the third review, where the contractor failed to show up on the agreed day, though the actual work was completed once the technician arrived. No reviewer commented on technical skill or workmanship quality, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 3 reviews available — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• One review (2014) documents a clear scheduling/administrative failure — the customer was not placed on the correct day, resulting in a missed appointment.
• Two of the three reviews are older than 5 years (2019, 2014), and all three are older than 12 months; recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of this score.
• No reviews mention workmanship, technical skill, or quality of completed work — the Experience dimension has no data and is excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 3 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor performance.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across only two reviews. The 2020 review praises responsiveness, punctuality, professionalism, and fair pricing, but the 2022 review reveals critical failures: excessive part markup (85%), incomplete work (toilet still malfunctions), and non-responsiveness to callback requests. The 2022 incident suggests either a significant decline in service quality or a pattern of overcharging vulnerable customers. With only two reviews spanning nearly two years and contradictory evidence, confidence in this score is limited.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The positive review is from February 2020 (nearly 4 years old); the negative review is from October 2022. Most recent data shows serious problems.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2022 review explicitly states the toilet 'still doesn't flush right' after service, indicating the job was not completed properly.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: Customer left a callback message in early October 2021 that was never returned, suggesting poor follow-up practices.
• PRICING ABUSE: Marked up a $10-20 part to $115 (85% markup) and charged $115 labor for a 20-minute job on an elderly customer.
• EXTREME INCONSISTENCY: Two reviews paint opposite pictures of service quality, making it difficult to assess true current performance.

This score should be treated with caution due to only two reviews with contradictory evidence and a significant time gap; the most recent negative review from 2022 raises serious concerns about pricing practices, work quality, and customer service responsiveness that outweigh the older positive review.

PDS has a deeply mixed and largely concerning review record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by multiple accounts of rudeness, poor communication, and a technician arriving late and ultimately refusing to do the job at all — offset only partially by one positive experience with a courteous and helpful technician. Project completion is a serious weak point: two reviews describe incomplete or failed work, one involving a drain left leaking and causing floor damage, and another where the line backed up repeatedly under warranty with the company refusing to honor it. Experience scores low due to a snake getting caught for two hours and a leak left unresolved after service, though the one detailed positive review does describe competent and thorough work. Pricing data is sparse, with only one reviewer noting costs were higher than expected but understandable given weekend rates, and no other pricing commentary to draw from.

• Four of the five reviews are older than 10 years, with the most recent being from 2013. This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• The review from 2002 ('PLEASANT, RESPECTFUL SERVICE') is extremely generic with no specifics — it provides minimal usable signal and may be unreliable.
• The 1-star review from 2006 describes warranty refusal and rude behavior; the 2-star review from 2005 describes the company disputing their own involvement despite a cashed check — both suggest a pattern of poor accountability.
• Only 5 reviews total. Per scoring rules, the WW Score is calculated but should be treated with very low reliability due to small sample size and extreme age of data.

This WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable — all five reviews are over 10 years old, the sample size is critically small, and the review set contains both a near-useless generic review and multiple serious complaints that may or may not reflect the company's current state of operations.

All three reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor with serious operational and technical failures. Professionalism scored near the floor due to a forgotten appointment, chronic failure to return calls, excessive phone use on the job, and poor communication across all three reviews. Project completion was equally poor, with work left unfinished, a gas stove installed incorrectly despite repeated warnings about propane, a leaking soldered connection, and significant delays caused by the plumber's absence. Experience scored marginally above zero only because one reviewer noted neat glued pipe connections, but this was heavily outweighed by critical errors including installing the wrong stove hookups, failing to convert a stove to propane, and scratching new flooring during installation. Pricing data was entirely absent from all reviews and could not be scored.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings — while this could reflect genuine poor performance, the absence of any positive reviews means the dataset is entirely one-sided and may not represent the contractor's full history.
• Review dates span 2010 to 2020 — the most recent review is from November 2020, which is over 4 years old. No recent data is available to assess current performance.
• The oldest review (2010) is over a decade old and should be treated with very low weight. The 2014 review is also significantly dated.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is at the minimum threshold for WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as directional only and not definitive.
• No pricing dimension data was available in any review — the WW Score is calculated on only 3 of 4 dimensions, which reduces its completeness.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are negative and the most recent of which is from 2020, making the score directionally informative but not statistically reliable — treat with caution and seek more current data before drawing firm conclusions.