Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Steve's business shows significant professionalism issues that heavily impact the overall score. Two recent reviews (2024 and 2021) document serious communication failures: canceling jobs without honest explanation, ignoring voicemails and emails, and failing to deliver promised estimates. However, when work is completed, quality and pricing are solid—two reviews praise fair pricing and skilled workmanship on completed jobs. The pattern suggests inconsistent follow-through and responsiveness that undermines otherwise competent technical work.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews document severe communication and responsiveness failures (2024 and 2021), including job cancellation without honest explanation and complete non-response to multiple contact attempts.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative review is from April 2024, indicating ongoing issues. Positive reviews are from 2023 and earlier, suggesting potential deterioration in service quality.
• PATTERN ALERT: Both negative reviews specifically cite communication breakdown (estimate delays, unanswered calls/emails, dishonesty). This is a systemic professionalism issue, not isolated incidents.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews limits confidence in overall assessment. Score should be treated as preliminary.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and recency of critical failures. The professionalism dimension is well-evidenced and concerning, but overall reliability is moderate at best given the pattern of communication breakdowns documented in recent reviews.

Python Plumbing shows a mixed track record across reviews spanning nearly two decades. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple reviews citing late arrivals, poor communication, and a plumber abandoning a job mid-visit without resolution. Project completion is similarly inconsistent — while several reviews describe clean, same-day completions, at least two reviews describe jobs that were never properly finished, including a crooked toilet, a damaged wall, and a clog that was left unresolved. Pricing is a notable concern, with one reviewer shocked by a $450 bill for a faucet change with no upfront estimate, and another charged $40 for a visit where nothing was fixed. Experience scores are more favorable, with several reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the 2018 negative review directly contradicts this with a faucet handle installed incorrectly and a plumber who refused to attempt a repair.

• Most reviews are significantly older than 1 year — only 2 reviews are from 2019–2020; the majority date from 2011–2018, with one from 2005. Current performance may differ substantially from what these reviews reflect.
• The 2005 review is written entirely in capital letters with generic superlatives and no specific job details — this may be low-quality or unreliable data and was weighted minimally.
• The review from 2019 ('Great Work! My sister has been using them for 20 years') contains no specific job details and provides no actionable evidence for any dimension — it was treated as low-utility data.
• No fake review pattern detected across the full set, but several positive reviews are vague and lack specifics, which limits their evidentiary value.
• Two 1-star reviews and one 2-star review contain detailed, specific complaints about punctuality failures, incomplete work, property damage, and pricing surprises — these are treated as high-credibility negative signals.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high proportion of reviews older than 3 years, a small total review count of 12, and a meaningful cluster of detailed negative reviews that reveal systemic issues with scheduling, job completion, and pricing transparency.

Trio Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While positive reviews consistently praise technical skill, punctuality, and courteous individual technicians (particularly Shawn, Eric, David, and Mike), negative reviews overwhelmingly cite rude and aggressive management (especially owner Mark), poor follow-through on callbacks, undisclosed fees, and incomplete work assessments. The company demonstrates strong technical capability but severe deficiencies in customer service, professionalism, and accountability. Multiple reviews document instances of damage to property without compensation, failure to honor warranties, and hostile responses to legitimate complaints. The pattern suggests inconsistent service quality heavily dependent on which technician is assigned.

• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: 18 reviews explicitly cite rude, aggressive, or disrespectful behavior from staff, particularly owner Mark. Multiple reviews describe him raising his voice, interrupting customers, and being argumentative.
• RECURRING PATTERN OF UNDISCLOSED FEES: At least 6 reviews document surprise charges not mentioned during initial quotes or scheduling (license fees, additional installation charges, permit fees), suggesting systematic pricing opacity.
• CALLBACK AND WARRANTY FAILURES: Multiple reviews document failure to return for follow-up work, ignored voicemails (full inboxes), and refusal to honor 1-year guarantees on workmanship.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCOUNTABILITY: At least 5 reviews describe damage (scratches, broken appliances, water damage, flooded basements) with company refusing responsibility or becoming hostile when confronted.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising individual technicians and 1-star reviews citing poor workmanship, incomplete assessments, and code violations.
• PERMIT AND CODE VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews cite failure to obtain required permits or work done incorrectly per city inspection standards.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2013-2022 period; more recent reviews (2024) show mixed results but continued professionalism complaints.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in the data. While the score of 62.3 reflects the aggregate, the company's actual reliability depends heavily on technician assignment and whether issues arise post-installation. The HIGH confidence in dimensions is based on mention volume, but the underlying data reveals a company with strong technical execution undermined by severe management and customer service failures that create substantial risk for customers.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record spanning nearly two decades of reviews. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and is dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints: a cancelled appointment with a rude follow-up, a workman who showed up at his own convenience without apology, failure to return calls, and a never-submitted bid. Positive professionalism mentions do exist — punctuality, politeness, and good communication are praised in several older reviews — but the negative incidents are specific and credible. Pricing is a concern, with multiple reviewers noting estimates that were significantly higher than competitors, though a few noted fair or even below-market pricing. Project completion is mixed: some jobs were completed promptly and cleanly, but one reviewer reported a roof that leaked every year for three years after installation, requiring repeated failed callbacks, which is a serious red flag. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers praising quality workmanship on interior jobs while others questioned technical decisions such as the use of roofing cement and improper washer/gasket replacement.

• Several reviews are extremely old (2005–2007) and should be weighted minimally; the contractor's recent track record (2009–2023) shows a notable decline in service quality.
• One review (2013-12-11) contains only a period '.' with a 5-star rating and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• The roof leak complaint (2009) describes repeated failed callbacks over multiple years, indicating a pattern of unresolved workmanship failure rather than an isolated incident.
• The 2023 review is the most recent and describes a cancelled appointment, rude phone interaction, and refusal to reschedule — suggesting professionalism issues persist to the present day.
• Some older 5-star reviews use all-caps formatting and generic praise with limited specifics, which may indicate lower reliability, though they are not conclusively fake.
• The plumbing-specific review (2012) raises a credible technical competence concern, with the customer — who identifies as an engineer — disputing the contractor's account of work performed.

This WW Score is based on 24 usable reviews spanning 18 years; while mention counts are sufficient for HIGH confidence labels on all dimensions, the extreme age range of the data and a clear pattern of declining service quality in more recent reviews means the score should be treated with caution — the contractor's current performance is likely worse than the aggregate score suggests.

Stone Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions with significant recency and consistency concerns. Professionalism scores are heavily influenced by a severe 2017 incident involving property damage, unresponsiveness, and customer dismissal (hanging up), which substantially outweighs positive comments about punctuality and friendliness from older reviews. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, and experience is demonstrated through technical capability, but the small sample size and age of most reviews (3 of 4 are 11+ years old) severely limit confidence. The company's willingness to deny responsibility for documented damage is a critical professional integrity issue.

• CRITICAL: One review (2017) documents serious professional misconduct—owner admitted to damaging customer property, refused accountability, and hung up on customer. Customer filed formal grievance with Texas state board.
• RECENCY ISSUE: 75% of reviews are older than 11 years (2012-2013). Only 1 recent review from 2023. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (2012, 2013, 2023) and damning 1-star review (2017) with specific documented misconduct. No middle-ground reviews.
• LIMITED SAMPLE: Only 4 reviews total. Insufficient volume for reliable scoring.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: Positive mentions of punctuality and friendliness are contradicted by documented unresponsiveness (week of phone tag) and hostile customer interaction (hanging up).

This score should be treated with significant caution due to very small sample size (4 reviews), extreme age of most data (11+ years), and a documented serious professional misconduct incident that raises integrity concerns regardless of other positive feedback.

Koehne Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical skill in positive reviews, with Mark praised for responsiveness, punctuality, and problem-solving ability. However, a critical 1-star review from 2020 describes a failed grinder pump installation and complete lack of follow-through on warranty callbacks, directly contradicting claims of standing behind work. The company demonstrates inconsistent project completion—some jobs are finished thoroughly while others are abandoned after installation failure. With only 3 reviews spanning 8 years and a stark polarity between 5-star and 1-star ratings, confidence in this score is limited. The most recent negative review (2020) raises serious reliability concerns.

• Critical reliability flag: One review explicitly states the company does not stand behind its work and failed to honor repeated callback promises after a faulty installation.
• Temporal concern: Reviews span from 2016 to 2020 with no recent data (past 12 months). Most recent review is negative and 4+ years old.
• Polarity concern: Extreme split between 5-star reviews (praising Mark) and 1-star review (condemning company reliability). This suggests inconsistent service delivery or possible personnel-dependent quality.
• Sample size: Only 3 reviews is insufficient for high-confidence scoring. Each review carries disproportionate weight.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume, significant age of data, and a critical negative review describing warranty failure and non-responsiveness that directly contradicts positive claims about professionalism and follow-through.