Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Bieg Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested area: while many positive reviewers praise friendly, courteous, and on-time technicians, a substantial number of negative reviews cite repeated no-shows, scheduling failures, rude office staff, and technicians who billed for time spent sitting in vans or chatting. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with numerous reviewers explicitly calling out bait-and-switch quoting, charges far exceeding initial estimates, billing for unproductive time, and fees for jobs that were never completed or were done incorrectly. Project completion is similarly mixed — positive reviews describe efficient, thorough work, while negative reviews document incomplete jobs, abandoned work mid-project, and failures to fix the original problem even after payment. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers praising skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but offset by accounts of incorrect installations, technicians lacking necessary parts or knowledge, and work that needed to be redone.

• 14 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great professionals', 'Professional, friendly service and great work', 'Bieg plumbing shows up on time and does excellent work') with no specific details about the job, technician, or circumstances. These may inflate the positive signal and were weighted conservatively.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 includes multiple blank reviews and several very short positive reviews, which is a pattern consistent with review padding or bulk submission. Confidence in the positive signal from that date cluster is reduced.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) skew heavily negative, with multiple 1-star reviews citing pricing deception, no-shows, and incomplete work. Older reviews (2018–2021) are more mixed. This trend suggests a possible decline in service quality over time and was factored into scoring.
• Multiple reviews describe a specific pattern of charging for diagnostic visits at a quoted low fee, then billing significantly more without prior disclosure — this is a recurring and credible complaint pattern, not isolated incidents.
• At least two reviews describe being charged for work that was done incorrectly and then being asked to pay again for the correction, which is a serious project completion and professionalism concern.

This WW Score is based on 51 reviews with usable text content across a broad date range (2011–2025) and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strong recency trend toward negative experiences and credible recurring complaints about pricing transparency and scheduling reliability.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2016–2023. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented instances of unprofessional phone behavior, poor communication, no-shows, and owner hostility toward customers. Pricing raises serious red flags with explicit allegations of overcharging and attempted fraud across multiple reviews. Project completion is mixed—some jobs are completed satisfactorily, but at least one resulted in worse conditions requiring a second contractor. Technical skill appears adequate when work is completed, but customer trust is heavily damaged by poor follow-through and lack of accountability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2018, 2016) allege deliberate overcharging and fraud. One customer paid $1,025 for work that made the problem worse; owner refused refund or apology. Another review explicitly states 'tried screwing my mom out of thousands.' These are not isolated complaints.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2023 review documents no-show with zero communication, blocking customer's entire day. Owner called to 'make it right' but customer will not return.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2018 review describes owner answering phone with burping, throwing phone down, yelling, and becoming hostile when customer called about failed work. Owner blamed customer for not understanding the job scope despite bidding it at $900.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most damaging reviews are 5–7 years old (2016, 2018). However, 2023 review shows current operational issues (no-shows, poor communication). Pattern suggests chronic systemic problems, not isolated incidents.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews praise politeness, professionalism, and fair pricing. Negative reviews describe the same owner as hostile, dismissive, and deceptive. This stark contradiction suggests either highly variable service quality or that some customers are more vulnerable to overcharging.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 6 reviews with moderate mention counts, the contractor exhibits a documented pattern of serious ethical and professionalism issues (fraud allegations, no-shows, owner hostility) that outweigh positive reviews. The WW Score of 58.3 reflects this risk profile, but potential customers should review the detailed allegations independently before engaging this contractor.

Gateway Sewer & Drain shows highly polarized performance with a significant gap between positive and negative experiences. While older reviews (2016–2018) consistently praise professionalism, speed, and service quality, more recent reviews (2019–2024) reveal serious systemic issues: incomplete diagnostics, failure to identify root causes, refusal to refund failed work, poor manager communication, and inadequate technician training. The company demonstrates competence in basic drain clearing but struggles with complex problem-solving, accountability, and customer service recovery. Pricing is inconsistent—some customers report reasonable rates while others feel overcharged for incomplete work.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews cluster in 2016–2018 (3–8 years old); negative reviews cluster in 2019–2024 (recent). This suggests service quality has deteriorated significantly over time.
• ACCOUNTABILITY PATTERN: Multiple recent reviews (2019, 2020, 2024) report manager refusal to refund or acknowledge failed work. This is a red flag for customer service culture.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Four negative reviews explicitly cite failure to properly diagnose root cause (clog location, pipe condition, cleanout location). This suggests inadequate technician training or quality control.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews report technicians leaving jobs unfinished or creating new problems (leak, mess) without resolution.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: Older 5-star reviews are generic ('excellent service,' 'professional') with minimal detail, though they do name technicians (Stephen, Jason) which adds some credibility.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While based on 11 reviews with reasonable mention counts, the extreme polarization and clear temporal decline in service quality suggest the company's current reliability is significantly lower than its historical reputation. Recent customers (past 2 years) should weight negative reviews more heavily than older positive ones.

Gore Contracting shows a stark divide in customer experience. Two recent positive reviews (July 2024 and April 2024) praise competitive pricing, quick response times, and prompt service completion. However, a detailed July 2024 review documents serious failures: unprepared technicians, equipment shortages, property damage (scratched toilet bowl), incomplete work diagnosis, and unprofessional conduct. The negative review explicitly contradicts the contractor's technical assessment, with an independent plumber confirming no ventilation issue existed. With only 3 reviews and conflicting narratives, confidence remains limited across all dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Severe quality control inconsistency — same contractor produced both 1-star and 5-star outcomes in the same month (July 2024)
• DAMAGE ALLEGATION: Negative review documents permanent property damage (porcelain scratching) and incomplete work
• TECHNICAL CREDIBILITY ISSUE: Contractor's diagnosis (ventilation problem) was contradicted by independent plumber assessment
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: First technician reported arriving under influence of marijuana
• EQUIPMENT PREPAREDNESS: Multiple mentions of technicians arriving without necessary tools, requiring callbacks
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for high-confidence scoring; recommend collecting more recent data
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK DETAIL: Two 5-star reviews are generic in praise and do not address technical complexity or problem-solving depth

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews) and contradictory evidence within the same timeframe; the documented damage claim and equipment failures in the negative review are serious concerns that outweigh generic positive feedback, but more recent reviews are needed to establish reliable trend data.

This plumbing company shows significant inconsistency in service quality and customer satisfaction. While some customers praised responsiveness and helpfulness (professionalism mentions), multiple reviews cite serious concerns about overpricing, lack of transparency in quotes, and poor workmanship that was not remedied under warranty. The most damaging review details a failed water shut-off valve installation with inadequate follow-up service, suggesting both technical execution and post-sale accountability issues. Pricing complaints appear across multiple reviews with quotes changing without explanation and charges that customers deemed unreasonable. The company's willingness to stand behind completed work appears questionable based on explicit customer feedback.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of the most critical negative reviews are from 2021-2022 (2-3 years old). However, a recent 5-star review from October 2024 and a 1-star review from August 2024 suggest ongoing inconsistency rather than improvement over time.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Reviews are heavily polarized (three 5-star, three 1-star) with no middle-ground ratings, suggesting either highly variable service delivery or different customer expectations.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews explicitly mention lack of written quotes, verbal quotes that change, and perceived overpricing. This is a pattern, not an isolated incident.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: The September 2022 review details a serious defect (non-functional valve) that was not covered under warranty despite being installed by the company, indicating poor quality assurance and customer service recovery.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (6 reviews) and extreme polarization between positive and negative experiences. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects that while patterns are evident (pricing issues, inconsistent professionalism), the limited number of mentions per dimension and conflicting recent reviews prevent high confidence. Potential customers should request written quotes and clarify warranty terms before engaging this company.

Bailey's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across reviews. Professionalism is the most heavily mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of rude, dismissive, and even profane behavior from technicians — including an employee cursing at a homeowner and an owner calling a customer a liar — though a handful of reviews do praise polite and helpful workers. Project completion is similarly split: several jobs sent through American Water Resources resulted in technicians refusing to perform work and leaving without completing anything, while other direct-hire jobs were completed satisfactorily or even thoroughly. Pricing received limited but mostly positive feedback, with one reviewer noting the final bill matched the quoted price even after extended time on site. Experience scores moderately, with some evidence of solid technical skill (fishing out a bottle cap, sewer line inspection with useful feedback) offset by at least one instance of visibly poor workmanship (spray foam left everywhere, debris not cleaned up). The volume of serious professionalism and completion failures — particularly across multiple independent reviewers — prevents a higher overall score.

• Multiple reviews involve jobs dispatched through American Water Resources insurance, which may introduce a conflict-of-interest dynamic where technicians are incentivized to deny coverage rather than complete work — this context should be weighed when interpreting negative reviews.
• Several negative reviews describe nearly identical patterns: technicians arriving, briefly assessing, declaring work not covered, and leaving without performing any service. This behavioral pattern across multiple independent reviewers is credible and consistent, not indicative of fake reviews.
• The majority of positive reviews (4 out of 5) are dated 2022 or earlier, with only one positive review in the most recent 12-month window (none in 2024 aside from the most recent 1-star review dated April 2024). The trend of recent reviews skews strongly negative.
• One review (2017) describes poor workmanship quality — spray foam applied carelessly and debris left behind — which, while older, is consistent with the pattern of low accountability seen in more recent reviews.
• No reviews were flagged as suspected fake. Language and detail levels vary naturally across reviews, and both positive and negative reviews contain specific, credible details.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the sample size of 9 reviews is small but the data is rich with specific detail, the negative patterns are consistent and credible across multiple independent reviewers, and the recency trend (most recent review being a 1-star in April 2024) further supports treating the lower score as an accurate reflection of current service quality.