Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently supported dimension, with all 6 reviews referencing attributes such as punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and professional conduct. Project completion is reasonably well supported, with 4 reviews noting timely and complete work across single and repeat engagements. Experience scores moderately, with a few reviewers noting quality workmanship and the ability to handle a range of plumbing tasks, though specifics are limited. Pricing is mentioned in only 2 reviews using vague terms like 'reasonable' and 'fair price,' making that score low-confidence and conservatively assigned. Overall, the contractor presents a positive but modestly evidenced profile.

• Two reviews share the exact same date (2022-07-08), which may indicate they were submitted together or prompted simultaneously — minor concern.
• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While not conclusive, this uniformity warrants mild caution.
• Several reviews use generic praise ('great job,' 'professional,' 'outstanding') with limited specific detail, reducing the depth of evidence available for scoring.
• Four of the six reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation date, with only one review from 2023. Recency of data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability overall — professionalism is well-supported across all reviews, but the small review pool, lack of recency, uniform 5-star ratings, and limited detail on pricing and experience reduce confidence in the full picture.

H&A Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable service, with most reviews praising quick response times, quality workmanship, and professional conduct. However, two significant negative reviews (2022 and 2017) citing no-shows, rudeness, poor follow-through, and inflexible pricing substantially lower confidence in consistency. The company excels at emergency response and problem-solving but shows vulnerability in communication follow-up and pricing transparency. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible service improvements, but the pattern of serious complaints prevents a higher overall score.

• Two 1-star reviews (2022, 2017) describe serious issues: no-shows, rudeness, lack of follow-through, and refusal to negotiate pricing. These are not isolated complaints but detailed accounts of systemic problems.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2023–2024, while negative reviews are older (2022, 2017). This may indicate service improvement or could reflect selection bias in recent reviews.
• Pricing dimension shows conflict: Some reviews praise 'cost efficient' and 'reasonably priced,' while another explicitly states the quote was 'very high' and the company 'would not come down.' This suggests inconsistent pricing practices or communication.
• Follow-through issue mentioned in 2017 review: 'They never followed through with anything they said they would do.' This directly contradicts project completion claims in other reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details and vary in tone and outcome.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are consistently positive and suggest competent work, the presence of two detailed negative reviews describing serious professionalism and follow-through failures indicates the company has a history of inconsistent service delivery. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about whether recent improvements are sustainable or whether the company remains prone to the problems documented in earlier reviews.

Christian demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and pleasant demeanor across 7 reviews. His pricing is competitive and fair, explicitly mentioned as favorable in 5 reviews. However, project completion is a notable weakness: while most jobs are completed well, two reviews (2017-06-06 and 2017-05-21) document significant follow-through failures—unfinished cabinet work and a completely abandoned shrub removal job after agreement. His technical skill and workmanship quality are consistently praised across 6 reviews. The WW Score of 79.8 reflects strong fundamentals undermined by reliability concerns on callbacks and job follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2017-06-06 and 2017-05-21) document serious project completion failures—unfinished work and complete job abandonment after agreement. These are not minor issues and significantly impact trustworthiness.
• Review age: 6 of 8 reviews are from 2016-2017 (5-8 years old). Only 2 reviews are from 2018. Recent performance data is limited.
• Pattern concern: Multiple 5-star reviews use similar enthusiastic language ('amazing,' 'unicorn,' 'ANGEL,' 'GREAT') but this appears genuine given the specific details provided and the counterbalance of negative reviews with concrete complaints.
• The 2017-05-21 review (1-star) is particularly damaging—a handshake agreement on a $100 job that was never performed and calls went unanswered. This suggests potential capacity or reliability issues during that period.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from past 3 years) and documented project completion failures that contradict the otherwise positive professionalism and experience ratings. The score reflects a contractor with strong technical skills and communication when engaged, but with a concerning history of not following through on commitments.

GMP Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical skill, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship. However, the score is tempered by significant project completion issues: two severe 1-star reviews document serious failures including missed callbacks, permit mismanagement, unauthorized credit card charges, and incomplete repairs. Pricing is generally competitive, though one customer overpaid for a patch job. The company demonstrates inconsistency—excellent execution on most jobs contrasts sharply with critical failures in customer communication and follow-through on others.

• Two catastrophic 1-star reviews (2015-07-24 and 2015-09-15) document serious professional failures: missed callbacks, permit violations, unauthorized charges (fraud allegation), and poor customer handling. These are detailed, specific complaints with clear evidence.
• Multiple 5-star reviews with minimal detail ('unknown', 'well pleased will use again', 'Seemed to go fine') suggest possible review padding or generic praise, though most detailed reviews are substantive.
• All reviews are older than 1 year (oldest from 2012, most from 2013-2015). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been resolved.
• One 2-star review (2014-04-01) documents incomplete work and overcharging, suggesting a pattern of quality control issues beyond the two major failures.
• Significant recency gap: 8 years since most recent review. Current company performance is unknown.

This score should be treated with caution due to severe data recency issues (no reviews in 8+ years) and the presence of two detailed, credible catastrophic failures that substantially undermine confidence in consistency and reliability, despite many positive reviews from the same period.

Hubert Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, and courteous behavior from technicians Luke and Brandon. Pricing appears competitive based on one explicit mention of rates being half that of competitors. Project completion is solid with jobs finished on time and follow-through demonstrated, though one older review (2010) reveals a significant failure in estimate callback communication that prevented any service delivery. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident in descriptions of welding work, pipe sweating, and proactive problem-solving. However, the sample size is small (4 reviews) and three are from 2015–2017, limiting recency confidence.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are 8+ years old (2015–2017). Only one review provides recent data. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Scores carry inherent volatility and should not be treated as definitive.
• CRITICAL FAILURE DOCUMENTED: The 2010 review documents a serious professionalism failure (missed estimate callbacks over multiple days). While old, this indicates a historical pattern of communication breakdown that warrants caution.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only one review mentions pricing explicitly. Confidence in pricing score is limited.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant age of most data (8+ years), and lack of recent performance indicators. The score reflects historical performance but does not reliably predict current service quality.

Anytime Plumbing receives strong praise across most reviews for punctuality, responsiveness, and professional demeanor, with multiple reviewers highlighting same-day and emergency availability. Pricing is consistently described as fair and competitive across the reviews that mention it. However, one detailed 1-star review significantly weighs down the scores, describing a misdiagnosis, an unnecessary repair, refusal to follow through, and hostile communication when a refund was requested — this directly impacts project completion and experience scores. The majority of positive reviews are older (2018–2022), with only two reviews from the past 12 months, one of which is the negative review, suggesting recent performance may be less reliable than the historical record implies.

• One serious 1-star review (March 2024) describes misdiagnosis, failure to follow through on promised callbacks, refusal to issue a refund for unnecessary work, and verbal hostility toward the customer — this is a significant red flag and has been weighted heavily in project completion and experience scores.
• Several 5-star reviews use enthusiastic but somewhat generic praise (e.g., 'look no further', 'can't say enough good things'). While most include specific details, the pattern warrants mild caution.
• Recency concern: Of the 8 reviews, only 2 are from the past 12 months (2024). The bulk of positive reviews are from 2018–2022, meaning the current quality of service is harder to assess with confidence.
• The 2018 review is based solely on responsiveness and willingness to help — the reviewer explicitly states they had already secured another service, meaning no actual work was performed. This review was treated as limited evidence for professionalism only.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool, a concentration of older reviews, and one substantive negative review that raises serious concerns about technical accuracy, follow-through, and customer dispute handling.