Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Three of four reviews are strongly positive, praising TJ specifically for professionalism, punctuality, technical knowledge, and customer service. However, one detailed 1-star review raises a serious concern about a technician displaying a dismissive, condescending attitude and failing to properly diagnose issues — including refusing to use diagnostic equipment before drawing conclusions. This negative review meaningfully drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored. The overall picture is mixed: when TJ is the technician, performance appears strong, but at least one other technician has generated a significant complaint.

• All positive reviews mention TJ by name, while the negative review does not — this may indicate inconsistent service quality depending on which technician is dispatched.
• Three of the four reviews are from 2019 or earlier, with the most recent positive review dated 2021 and the most recent negative review dated 2016. Recency is limited across the board; no reviews from the past 12 months are present.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews total). Scores should be treated with caution and are not statistically reliable.
• The negative review describes a pattern of repeated poor behavior across multiple visits, which increases its credibility and weight despite being a single review.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2014–2021, with no recent data, making it LOW reliability — the score should not be used as a definitive indicator of current service quality.

Tony Swoboda demonstrates strong pricing and technical competence, with customers praising fair rates and quality workmanship. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a critical no-show pattern: two consecutive missed appointments without follow-up on the second occasion, which directly contradicts claims of reliability. The positive 2019 review highlights responsiveness and willingness to work on short notice, but the 2022 review reveals serious dependability issues that occurred after that praise. With only 3 reviews total and conflicting evidence on reliability, confidence in this score remains limited.

• CRITICAL: Review from 2022 documents two no-shows with poor communication on second incident—directly contradicts 'reliable' and 'dependable' claims in earlier review. This is a major red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative review is from June 2022 (nearly 2 years old). Positive reviews are from 2024 and 2019. Unclear if no-show issues have been resolved.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is inherently limited with this volume.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: One customer explicitly states 'not dependable and very questionable business practices' while another calls him 'reliable.' This inconsistency suggests either significant changes in service quality or variable performance.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting evidence regarding reliability and professionalism. The documented no-show pattern is a serious concern that outweighs positive pricing and technical feedback. Additional recent reviews are needed to determine if service quality has improved since 2022.

Bradley Plumbing shows genuine strengths in technical knowledge and workmanship, with one reviewer praising superb craftsmanship on an extensive remodel and another appreciating a detailed explanation of Delta faucet mechanics. Pricing transparency was positively noted in one review, with no hidden costs reported. However, a significant negative data point — a no-show with no courtesy call in 2017 — meaningfully drags down professionalism and project completion scores, as this represents a serious failure in reliability and communication. The overall picture is mixed: when they show up, the quality appears solid, but the no-show incident cannot be dismissed. The small review pool and age of most reviews (the majority are from 2014–2022, with nothing recent) limit confidence substantially.

• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2016-09-02) contains only the word 'unknown' and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-02-02) contains an off-topic sentence ('You might want to show the Outlook message BEFORE we write all of the answers') suggesting it may have been submitted via a survey tool incorrectly, reducing its reliability.
• Only 5 total reviews are available, which is an extremely small sample. The WW Score should be treated as highly provisional.
• The most recent review is from June 2022 — over two years old at minimum. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, making current performance impossible to assess.
• All reviews except one are 5-star ratings, but the negative review is substantive and specific, suggesting the positive skew may not reflect a complete picture rather than fake reviews per se.
• The no-show incident (March 2017) is a serious professionalism and reliability flag that is not offset by the small number of positive reviews available.

This WW Score is based on only 4 usable reviews spanning 2014–2022 with no recent data, and should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional current references.

This contractor shows mixed performance across available dimensions. Professionalism mentions span all three reviews with conflicting accounts: two positive (punctual, courteous, informative) versus one strongly negative (unprofessional, extremely late). Pricing data is limited to two mentions with opposing views (affordable vs. overcharged). Project completion is mentioned twice with one positive (task accomplished same day) and one negative (missed appointment, rescheduled service failed). No technical experience or workmanship quality is explicitly discussed in any review. The significant recency gap (two reviews from 2019, one from 2015) and small sample size limit confidence in this score.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2019 and one from 2015 — all older than 4+ years. No recent data available to assess current performance.
• CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS: Stark contradiction between positive reviews (reliable, professional, fair pricing) and one 1-star review (unprofessional, late, overcharged). This suggests either significant service variability or potential dispute resolution issues.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Statistically unreliable for drawing firm conclusions about contractor quality.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: Technical skill and workmanship quality are not addressed in any review, limiting full assessment.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited sample size (3 reviews), significant age of data (4+ years old), and conflicting accounts that suggest either inconsistent service delivery or unresolved customer disputes. A score of 62.8 reflects the mixed evidence but carries LIMITED overall confidence and should not be relied upon for major decisions without seeking more recent reviews.

The three reviews present a mixed picture. Two positive reviews from 2020–2021 highlight helpful, knowledgeable staff and competitive pricing, which is encouraging for a supply/service business. However, a strongly negative review from 2015 describes arrogant employees and outdated practices, which meaningfully drags down professionalism and experience scores. Project completion could not be scored as no review explicitly addressed job completion or follow-through. Given the small sample size and the age spread of reviews, scores are treated conservatively throughout.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated with caution.
• The negative review is from 2015 (over 8 years old at time of most recent review) and may not reflect current business practices; however, it cannot be dismissed given the small sample.
• The two positive reviews lack specific detail and are relatively generic in praise, which slightly reduces confidence in those scores.
• No reviews mention project completion, callbacks, or job delivery — this dimension could not be scored at all.
• Recency concern: the most recent reviews are from 2020–2021, meaning all reviews may now be over 3 years old with no recent data available.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 6+ years, with no data on project completion, making it insufficient to reliably assess this business — treat with significant caution.

Burke Plumbing receives sharply mixed feedback across all dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviewers praise individual technicians as polite, friendly, and timely, but this is offset by serious complaints including lying to a customer, ignoring texts, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and a technician allegedly pocketing cash payment. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with numerous detailed complaints about quotes being dramatically understated, service call fees not being rolled into repair costs, and charges perceived as grossly excessive relative to the work performed. Project completion is also problematic — multiple reviews describe incomplete work, return visits that never happened, improperly installed fixtures, and work that failed within 24 hours. Experience scores middling: some technicians are praised as knowledgeable and effective, but others are criticized for misdiagnosing problems (e.g., recommending a new water heater when only a cartridge or pressure valve was needed), installing wrong-sized equipment, and leaving work in worse condition than found.

• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND RECURRING: At least 10 reviews independently describe overcharging, hidden fees, quotes that bore no resemblance to final bills, or pricing perceived as exploitative. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer (2023-05-19) alleges a technician pocketed a cash payment and did not enter the job into the system. This is a serious allegation that, if accurate, represents a significant ethical violation.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: The 2022-03-24 review documents multiple scheduled appointments where technicians failed to appear, and a follow-up visit that required signing a release form before work would begin — a highly unusual and concerning practice.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary major repairs or replacements (water heater, pipe rerouting, counter ripping) that were later found to be incorrect by other plumbers.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2014–2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show both positive and negative experiences, so the mixed pattern is not improving over time.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): A small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 2023-02-16, 2018-05-23) lack specific detail and read as formulaic. These were included but weighted conservatively given their lack of specificity.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion — a drain re-clogged within 24 hours, a toilet that would not flush properly after installation, a sink stopper that leaked after replacement, and a dishwasher install that required the homeowner to fix something the next day.

This WW Score is based on 37 reviews spanning a decade, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score HIGH overall confidence; however, the deeply polarized nature of the reviews — with a substantial bloc of detailed, specific negative experiences — means the score of 58.3 should be taken seriously as a warning that outcomes with this contractor are highly inconsistent and carry meaningful risk, particularly around pricing transparency and job completion follow-through.