Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Armstrong Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviews praising friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name across many years of service. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished promptly and correctly, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, repeat callbacks for the same issue, no-shows, and at least one case of a job abandoned mid-project. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension in the review set — numerous reviewers explicitly describe being quoted 2x to 4x competitor prices, receiving unexplained charges, or feeling overcharged for simple jobs, and this pattern is consistent across multiple years and locations. While many satisfied customers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, the volume and specificity of pricing complaints is too substantial to ignore and pulls the price-friendly score well below average.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates in early June 2025 (e.g., 'Both gentlemen from Armstrong Plumbing made the job I had been putting off easy...' and 'The staff is very friendly, and the job was done perfectly!' each appear twice within 2 days, and 'Window was 8-12, tech showed up at 1.' and 'Carlos from Armstrong Plumbing was most professional...' also appear duplicated). These duplicates were counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation.
• REVIEW SOLICITATION FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states Armstrong 'bombards you with requests for online reviews, even after you already submit one,' which may artificially inflate review volume and skew the overall rating distribution toward 5 stars.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC: At least 18 reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overpricing, with several providing direct competitor comparisons showing Armstrong quotes 2x to 4x higher (e.g., $1,795 vs $450 competitor, $2,500 vs $800 competitor, $67,000 vs $19,000 competitor for re-pipe). This is not isolated and materially impacts the pricing dimension score.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows with no communication, including one reviewer who describes three consecutive no-shows over a month. This pattern negatively impacts both professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2019 and earlier carry reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021 onward, and the most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a broadly positive but still mixed pattern consistent with the longer-term record.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES NOTED: Several reviews describe jobs that were not fixed correctly on the first visit, required multiple callbacks, or resulted in damage (e.g., ceiling collapse, flooded pantry, persistent leaks after repair). These are factored into the project completion score.
• AI SYSTEM FLAG: One reviewer specifically complained about Armstrong using AI for scheduling, which may affect the authenticity of some communication-related positive mentions.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on the pricing dimension specifically, where the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints across many independent reviewers represents a consistent and credible pattern that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.

Anton's receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians across a very large review base spanning many years. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: a substantial number of negative reviews — spanning from 2008 through 2025 — explicitly describe markups of 3x to 20x on parts, quotes far exceeding competitors, and aggressive upselling tactics that erode trust. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished on time or ahead of schedule, though a notable cluster of negative reviews describes misdiagnosis, return visits for the same issue, and abandoned or incomplete work. Technical experience scores moderately well overall, but is undermined by multiple credible accounts of misdiagnosis — including missed capacitors, incorrect carbon monoxide claims, and failure to perform basic troubleshooting — suggesting inconsistency in technician skill level across the team.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: A large block of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates of reviews from the same period (e.g., 'My technician was Jim Auer. He did a great job. Was completely satisfied.' appears twice; the long AC/furnace/water heater review appears twice; the propane line review appears twice; and multiple others). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication. Confidence in the 5-star review cluster from this period is reduced.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: At least 12 distinct negative reviews across multiple years (2014–2024) independently describe the same pattern: technicians recommending full system replacements when cheaper repairs were available, quoting prices 2x–10x higher than competitors, and pushing unnecessary add-ons. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems — including a locked compressor that was actually a bad capacitor, a carbon monoxide threat that was not confirmed by a second company, a furnace valve that did not need replacing, and a dirty A-coil that needed cleaning rather than system replacement. This pattern materially reduces the experience score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (many of which appear duplicated) and 2017–2021. Reviews from 2012–2016 include both strong positives and significant negatives. The upselling and misdiagnosis complaints span the full date range, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ALL-5-STAR CLUSTER WARNING: The 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09 review block is entirely 5-star with many being duplicates. This cluster artificially inflates the positive signal and has been weighted conservatively.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating the positive signal, a well-documented and multi-year pattern of upselling and overpricing complaints, and recurring misdiagnosis incidents that suggest inconsistent technician quality — consumers should seek multiple quotes and independent second opinions before committing to major work.

Precision Plumbing Solutions presents a deeply mixed picture across a large review base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints: an owner screaming profanities at a customer, a plumber (Rob) described as obnoxious and arrogant, chronic failure to return calls, technicians arriving late without notice, and at least one incident of alleged financial fraud involving a stolen check cashed twice. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers independently describing charges as 'way overpriced,' 'double the going rate,' or 'outrageous,' and several citing hidden or undisclosed fees only revealed after work was completed. Project completion is inconsistent — many jobs are finished promptly and well, but there are repeated credible accounts of work not resolving the problem, refusal to honor guarantees, and failure to follow through on callbacks or estimates. Experience scores higher, as many individual technicians (Kent, Josh, Mark, Chad, Dan) receive strong praise for technical skill and problem-solving, suggesting competence varies significantly by technician.

• 39 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence. The high volume of blank 5-star reviews is a potential concern and may inflate the raw star average.
• Pricing complaints are numerous, independent, and highly specific (dollar amounts cited, comparisons to competitors made). This is a credible and consistent pattern — not isolated grievances.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of charging a service/trip fee, then presenting a much higher quote on arrival with no prior disclosure — a business practice flagged by several reviewers as deceptive.
• One review (2021) describes a serious financial fraud incident involving a fired employee who stole and cashed a customer check twice, with police involvement. A second reviewer references a similar police report. This is a significant integrity flag.
• One review (2019) describes the owner Jesse screaming profanities and slurs at a customer over the phone. This is an extreme professionalism failure at the ownership level.
• Several negative reviews are from 2017–2022 and may reflect prior management or staffing. However, negative reviews continue into 2024–2025, suggesting issues have not been fully resolved.
• The company appears to operate under at least two names — 'Precision Plumbing Solutions' and 'Burke Plumbing' — as noted by multiple reviewers. This dual-name operation was flagged as confusing and potentially deceptive by customers.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2017–2025. Recent 2025 reviews are predominantly positive but many are blank. The most serious misconduct complaints (fraud, verbal abuse, warranty refusals) are concentrated in 2018–2022 but pricing complaints persist into 2024–2025.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (148 total, 109 with usable data) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the serious and specific misconduct flags — particularly around pricing transparency, warranty honoring, and ownership conduct — before engaging this contractor.

Cordia Plumbing has a long operating history with a substantial base of satisfied customers who praise their technical skill, responsiveness in emergencies, and courteous technicians. However, a persistent and recurring pattern of missed appointments, failure to follow up on bids, and poor communication from the office significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing complaints are notable — multiple reviewers describe hidden charges, bills far exceeding verbal quotes, and a lack of billing transparency, though an equal number praise fair and competitive pricing. Experience scores are relatively stronger, with many reviewers citing skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, but offset by several reviews describing work that made problems worse or was left incomplete. The overall picture is a company with genuine technical capability undermined by chronic operational and communication failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Cordia Plumbing did everything great! Whereas other companies...' appears twice with nearly identical text and different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-05-11). Similarly, the review beginning 'Cordia kept me informed of when Steve would arrive...' appears three times across dates 2016-05-05 and 2016-05-03. These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 50+) predate 2022, with many from 2003–2016. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern. Older reviews were given reduced weight in scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 9 reviews contained no text (only a star rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• APPOINTMENT NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 8–10 distinct reviews across multiple years (2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2022, 2024) describe missed appointments, no-shows, or failure to return calls. This is a systemic and long-standing issue, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2016 backflow preventer, 2024 sewer lateral at $9,800 vs $6,700 quote, 2014 broken part charged to customer, 2013 verbal vs written quote discrepancy) describe unexpected charges or lack of written billing detail. This is a recurring pattern.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (2024-05-12) alleges theft of approximately $1,000 in property by Cordia employees during a job, with the company conducting no meaningful investigation. This is an unverified but serious claim that could not be ignored in the professionalism assessment.
• WORK QUALITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe work that was incomplete, made problems worse, or failed inspection (2008, 2009, 2019, 2022). These are offset by many positive workmanship reviews but represent a non-trivial failure rate.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 reviews) spanning approximately 20 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the long time span, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and a clear systemic pattern of appointment and communication failures that has persisted across decades.

This contractor has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise individual technicians by name and highlight responsive communication, punctual arrivals, and respectful in-home behavior. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern across multiple eras of reviews, with multiple customers explicitly describing charges as excessive, inconsistent with quoted amounts, or feeling taken advantage of — including a $1,000 charge for a faucet replacement (parts not included), $900 for toilet guts, $370 for a $7 part, and a $330 diagnostic that escalated unexpectedly. Project completion is generally strong, but there are notable failures including a shower faucet left in worse condition than found, an unresolved gas leak after repeated visits, a missed callback during an emergency, and a lawsuit allegation involving uninsured damage. The professionalism score is tempered by multiple reviews citing rude or dismissive behavior from the owner/office, and one technician making an inappropriate comment upon arrival.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of 9 reviews all dated 2025-05-10 and 4 reviews dated 2024-08-13 show suspiciously generic, marketing-style language with no specific job details, technician names, or unique circumstances. Phrases like 'exceeded all my expectations,' 'expertise and precision,' 'personalized care and attention to detail,' and 'encyclopedia' of knowledge are atypical of organic customer reviews. These reviews inflate the overall star rating and have been discounted in scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews dated 2024-06-09 also follow a pattern of generic praise with no specifics, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized review activity around that date cluster.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 14 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of detailed, substantive reviews span from 2009 to 2022. While recent reviews exist, many of the most informative reviews (both positive and negative) are older than 12 months, reducing confidence in current service consistency.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent, detailed reviews across different years (2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2022) describe charges significantly above quoted amounts, upselling of unnecessary work, and fees that did not match the scope of work performed. This is a persistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: At least two reviews explicitly describe the owner or office staff as rude or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns, which is a meaningful professionalism flag.
• UNRESOLVED WORK: One review describes a shower faucet left in a worse state than found with no follow-up from the company after an email complaint. Another describes a gas leak that was never resolved despite multiple paid visits.
• LAWSUIT ALLEGATION: One review (2009) alleges the owner caused property damage while uninsured and was avoiding legal service. While old, this is a serious flag that warrants mention.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY CONFUSION: Several reviews appear to reference different business entities (M&R Plumbing, Mr. Plumbing, Mr. Reliable Plumbing and Heating) and different geographic markets (Chicago suburbs vs. San Jose/Bay Area California). Some reviews referencing 'Michael Ra' and California locations may belong to a different business entirely, which could contaminate the dataset.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized review clusters, a persistent multi-year pricing complaint pattern, possible cross-business review contamination, and a meaningful number of blank reviews that provide no scoring data.

Creve Coeur Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, which anchors the professionalism score. However, notable negative incidents — including a complete no-show with no follow-up communication, a ghosting episode after an initial visit, and one review citing rude behavior and poor communication — prevent a higher professionalism score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out quotes as excessive (e.g., $300 per sink hookup, $300+ for a cartridge replacement), and one customer paid $430 for a problem that was never resolved, dragging the price-friendly score down significantly despite some reviews praising fair or reasonable pricing. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were finished quickly and well, but there are documented cases of incomplete work, ghosting on follow-up, and a failure to resolve a frozen pipe issue after two visits. Experience scores moderately well based on reviews praising technical knowledge and quality workmanship, tempered by the frozen pipe misdiagnosis and a faucet installation that had to be completed by another contractor.

• Two reviews (2021-08-27 and 2022-06-10) are near-identical in wording ('walked me through exactly what I needed to do to fix my issue, a video of how to do so, as well as scams to avoid') — this is a strong indicator of a duplicated or potentially fake review and has been treated with reduced weight.
• Six reviews contain no usable text (blank, 'good.', 'Very well.', '.', 'unknown', or a single period) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 25 of 44) are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2006–2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater emphasis to reviews from 2021 onward.
• The review referencing 'Gateway Plumbing' (2021-03-28) appears to be for a different company entirely and may have been posted to the wrong business profile — it was excluded from scoring.
• The 2011 review mentioning subcontracting ('They subcontract btw') is a notable flag that could affect quality control expectations, though it is a single older mention.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given the volume of reviews analyzed, but is tempered by the age of a large portion of the review base, two suspected duplicate reviews, one likely misattributed review, and several content-free submissions that could not contribute usable data.