Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

The Drain Guy LLC shows strong technical competence and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising workmanship quality and successful problem-solving. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable. However, professionalism is a significant concern, with two recent negative reviews (2024 and 2022) explicitly citing rudeness, argumentativeness, and poor communication, contrasting sharply with older positive reviews. The 2024 review mentions unexpected roof charges without prior discussion. Recency bias suggests current service quality may be lower than historical reputation.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (2024 and 2022) are highly negative, citing rudeness and poor communication, while older reviews (2011-2019) are uniformly positive. This suggests potential service degradation over time.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUE: Multiple reviews mention lack of transparency about scope (roof work not discussed beforehand) and rudeness during interactions.
• OLDER REVIEWS DOMINATE POSITIVE SENTIMENT: Four of five positive reviews are from 2011-2019. Only one recent positive review (July 2024) exists, which is outweighed by the negative review from same month.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between 'first class technician' and 'very rude' descriptions suggests either inconsistent service delivery or different technicians with varying professionalism.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting signals: strong technical skills are evident, but recent professionalism complaints and communication failures raise concerns about current service quality. The WW Score reflects historical strength, but the trend is concerning and suggests the score may overstate current reliability.

LaMartina Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Pricing receives the strongest marks with fair, reasonable rates consistently mentioned across multiple reviews. Experience and technical skill are solid, with reviewers noting quality workmanship and effective problem-solving. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by a critical 2020 review documenting failure to follow up on warranty issues, poor communication, and unresolved callbacks—a serious breach of service standards. Positive reviews span 2015–2021, but the most recent negative review (2020) raises concerns about consistency. The company demonstrates capability but has documented accountability gaps.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2020) documents severe professionalism and project completion failures: warranty claim ignored, no callback despite multiple contact attempts, 10+ days without resolution. This directly contradicts positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2015, 2019, 2021). Only one recent negative review from 2020. Limited current data to assess whether issues have been resolved.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: With only 5 total reviews, all dimension scores are based on 3–4 mentions each, limiting statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators rather than definitive measures.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews) and age of most data. The score reflects genuine mixed performance: strong pricing and technical ability offset by documented communication and follow-through failures. Additional recent reviews are needed to determine if service quality has improved or if the 2020 incident represents a pattern.

DB Plumbing has a long review history with generally positive feedback on professionalism, communication, and technical knowledge, particularly from older reviews praising Mr. Boner and Dan by name. Pricing is largely viewed as fair or reasonable across multiple reviews, with one reviewer noting they were charged only for one hour despite a two-hour visit. However, a significant 2023 complaint drags down the project completion dimension considerably — a customer reported that cast iron drain lines were not fully replaced, causing a subsequent backup and leak, and was then quoted an additional $3,000 to finish the job. This is a serious project completion failure and is the most recent review in the dataset. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2008–2021, meaning the recency picture is mixed and the 2023 negative review carries elevated weight as the most current data point.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are more than 2 years old, with several dating back to 2003–2009. The most recent review (2023) is a 1-star complaint about incomplete work and an upsell attempt. This recency imbalance means current service quality is difficult to assess confidently.
• THIN RECENT DATA: Only one review exists from the past 12 months (2023), and it is strongly negative. This single data point cannot be treated as representative but cannot be ignored given its recency.
• GENERIC PRAISE FLAGS: Two reviews ('He did really good. He was really good.' and 'I HIGHLY RECOMMEND HIM.') contain no specific detail and contribute minimal usable signal. These were excluded from the usable data count for scoring purposes.
• PUNCTUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer (2017) noted two no-show incidents before improvement, which tempers the otherwise positive punctuality feedback seen in other reviews.
• NO PATTERN OF FAKE REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews span 20 years, vary in tone, length, and detail, and include both positive and negative experiences. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low, most data is significantly dated, and the only recent review is a serious negative outlier that cannot be offset by older positive feedback.

Clog Commandos demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in customer interactions, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable staff, friendly communication, and professional demeanor. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on limited mentions. However, a critical responsiveness failure in the 2015 review—complete non-response to multiple contact attempts despite claiming 24/7 availability—significantly impacts the project completion score. Project completion is further weakened by this single but severe incident of service failure. The company shows excellent work quality and customer service when engaged, but the communication breakdown raises concerns about reliability.

• CRITICAL: 2015 review documents complete service failure—no response to phone calls or website contact form over 24+ hours despite advertised 24/7/365 availability. This is a severe professionalism and responsiveness issue.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 6 reviews are from 2012-2014 (8-12 years old). Only 1 recent review from 2015. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2012-2014 are uniformly 5-star with enthusiastic language and minimal critical detail. However, the 2015 negative review provides credibility to the dataset and suggests reviews are not fabricated.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total is a small dataset. Confidence in overall score is limited by volume.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (6 reviews), heavy skew toward outdated reviews (83% from 2012-2014), and one documented critical service failure that contradicts the positive pattern. The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current operations.

All three reviews consistently praise Ace STL's professionalism, communication, and responsiveness, with specific details such as proactive scheduling updates and crew efficiency lending credibility to the positive feedback. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting work was finished on time or ahead of schedule with no reported issues. Workmanship quality is explicitly mentioned across all three reviews, supporting a solid experience score. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension could not be scored. The overall score is tempered by the very small review pool and the age of the reviews, two of which are from 2016.

• Only 3 reviews available — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2016, making them over 8 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces confidence in current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants caution.
• Pricing dimension has NO DATA — this dimension was entirely excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are from 2016, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

Crafton Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, and friendly attitudes in every review. Pricing stands out as a particular strength, with one reviewer noting a repair completed for $75 that a competitor had quoted over $1,000, and another noting a large job came in under the original quote. Project completion is well-supported, with jobs described as finished on time or ahead of schedule and within or under budget. Workmanship and technical knowledge are affirmed through specific examples such as hot water heater installation, copper pipe work, and an assistant identifying an active termite colony from prior pest control experience. However, all four reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent dating to May 2020 — which meaningfully limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from May 2020, over 4 years ago. The oldest is from 2015. This score does not reflect current or recent performance and should be treated with caution.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews are available. While the data is usable, the small sample size limits statistical reliability and confidence across all dimensions.
• No fake review patterns detected: Reviews contain specific details (job types, dollar amounts, timelines, unique observations) that suggest authenticity.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW reliability due to the very small number of reviews (4) and the fact that all reviews are more than 4 years old, making it impossible to assess Crafton Plumbing's current quality of service with confidence.