Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Pierson Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and specifically praised attribute — reviewers highlight punctuality, communication, cleanliness, and courteous attitude. Pricing is a clear competitive strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting quotes came in lower than competitors and that final charges matched estimates. Project completion is well-supported, with jobs described as finished same-day or on schedule, and one reviewer noting willingness to tackle a difficult multi-trip sewer job others refused. Experience and workmanship are affirmed through specific mentions of technical knowledge, attention to detail, and quality outcomes. Scores are tempered slightly by the age distribution of reviews — several are from 2019–2021 — and one review is largely unusable due to incoherent content.

• One review (dated 2020-07-09) is largely incoherent and contains no usable scoring data; it was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• All 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with zero negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution. However, most reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied language, reducing the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2019–2021), which reduces their recency weight. Only 3 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2023–2024). Scores reflect this distribution conservatively.
• One review (2023-10-10) references a multi-trip sewer job that was not yet completed at time of writing — this was not counted as a confirmed project completion but was noted as a positive indicator of willingness to take on complex work.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — the review set is small at 11 total, but most contain specific, credible detail across all four dimensions, and the score is supported by HIGH confidence ratings across every dimension.

Absolute Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and predominantly positive review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are bolstered by hundreds of mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointments without notification, and several accounts of rude or combative behavior from staff and owners — a pattern that appears across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Pricing receives the lowest score due to a notable minority of reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, non-itemized invoices, hidden fees, inflated service call charges, and pricing that felt inconsistent or deceptive; while many reviewers praise fair pricing, the negative pricing complaints are specific and credible enough to suppress the score. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as completed efficiently and thoroughly, though a handful of reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks needed, or jobs that failed within days. Experience scores well, with many reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, problem-solving, and technical knowledge across a wide variety of plumbing tasks.

• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 15 reviews across multiple years describe no-shows, missed appointments without any call, or plumbers arriving significantly late without notice. This is a persistent and credible operational weakness, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE: Multiple reviewers across different years cite non-itemized bills, unexpected charges for drive time, inflated parts markups, high service call fees, and pricing that felt inconsistent or deceptive. One reviewer was quoted $3,200 for a water heater; another paid $162 for a 15-minute repair. These are not vague complaints.
• RUDE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe rude, dismissive, or combative behavior from staff or owners — including hanging up on customers, refusing to answer questions, and making racially charged comments. These are serious professionalism flags.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW POOL: The review set references a very large number of different technician names (Jose, Howard, Bill, Edwin, Josh, Larry, Steve, Raul, Sean, Brett, Andy, Jared, Matthew, Nick, John, Justin, etc.) and spans geographies including California (Bay Area, San Diego, Lodi, Castro Valley), Texas (Flower Mound, DFW), and Illinois (Chicago suburbs). This strongly suggests these reviews are aggregated from multiple distinct business locations or franchises operating under the 'Absolute Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any single location's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from approximately 2008 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are heavily weighted in this analysis. Older reviews (pre-2020) are present in large numbers and show similar patterns — both positive and negative — suggesting the operational issues are long-standing rather than recently resolved.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The majority of 5-star reviews contain specific technician names, job descriptions, and situational details, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, a subset of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great work', 'Hard worker gets the job done right', blank text with 5 stars) are present and contribute minor concern. Overall fake review risk is assessed as low to moderate.
• INCOMPLETE WORK INSTANCES: At least 3 reviews describe work that was left incomplete, required a return visit, or failed within days of completion — including a drain that re-blocked within 48 hours and a tankless water heater installation left unfinished for a month.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the very large review volume, but should be interpreted with caution given strong evidence that the review pool aggregates multiple distinct business locations operating under the same name, and given persistent credible complaints about appointment reliability, pricing transparency, and occasional staff conduct that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong positive sentiment.

Anthony receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions from every reviewer. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with all 5 reviews highlighting punctuality, communication, and a customer-focused attitude — including proactive texts before arrival and adherence to promised time windows. Project completion is equally well-supported, with reviewers describing problems fully resolved, additional issues addressed voluntarily, and one reviewer explicitly contrasting Anthony's efficiency against a prior plumber who failed to fix the same issue. Pricing is noted as reasonable and non-exploitative across 3 reviews, including one case where Anthony chose a minor repair over an unnecessary replacement. Technical skill and diagnostic ability are praised in 4 reviews, reinforcing a strong experience score. The only notable limitation is the small total review count of 5, which caps overall confidence.

• Only 5 reviews total — scores are directionally strong but the small sample size limits statistical reliability.
• One review is from 2018 (over 6 years old) and carries reduced weight; the remaining 4 are from 2023–2024 and are considered current.
• All reviews are 5-star, which warrants mild scrutiny; however, reviews contain specific details, varied phrasing, and concrete scenarios that argue against fabrication. No fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — the reviews are specific, credible, and recent, but the total count of 5 is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about consistency at scale.

Swift Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service categories, with particular strength in backflow testing and emergency response. However, pricing concerns emerge consistently across multiple reviews, with customers reporting significantly higher charges than competitors for similar work, and some feeling overcharged relative to time spent. Project completion is generally reliable with good communication, though one notable case involved a no-show and poor follow-up. The company excels in customer service interactions and problem-solving ability, but pricing transparency and consistency remain problematic areas that temper the overall score.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2022, 2018, 2014) report prices perceived as excessive compared to competitors. One customer paid $489 for toilet installation vs. competitor's ~$245; another paid $900 for kitchen sink work vs. $175 elsewhere. This pattern suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or lack of transparency.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Three reviews from 2023-06-10 are blank (no text, only ratings of 5.0, 1.0, 5.0). Additionally, multiple recent reviews (2025-05-10, 2025-04-10) use suspiciously similar phrasing ('get in and get out,' 'quickly & at an awesome price,' 'efficient and reliable'). The concentration of 5-star reviews with generic praise raises authenticity concerns.
• UNRELATED REVIEW DETECTED: One review (2024-11-11) is about Thai House restaurant, not Swift Plumbing. This review was excluded from analysis.
• SERIOUS SERVICE FAILURE: One 2023 review documents a technician no-show after poor communication regarding a water line replacement, with no follow-up contact. This represents a significant project completion failure.
• LEGAL/ETHICAL CONCERN: One 2024 review alleges potential redlining (selective service denial to certain geographic areas with added fees), raising serious compliance questions.
• THREAT ALLEGATION: One 2014 review claims the owner threatened to place a lien on the customer's property if a negative review was not removed. This is a serious allegation of coercion.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star and focus on backflow testing (routine, low-complexity work). Older reviews (2014-2018) show more critical pricing feedback and service issues. Recent positive reviews may not reflect full service quality.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contain no text content, making them impossible to analyze for dimension-specific feedback.

This WW Score of 79.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score is supported by substantial data (48 usable reviews with HIGH confidence in three dimensions), significant concerns about review authenticity (blank reviews, repetitive phrasing, concentration of recent 5-stars), serious pricing inconsistencies across multiple years, documented service failures, and unsubstantiated but serious allegations (redlining, coercion) substantially undermine confidence in the company's overall reliability. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in routine work, but customers should independently verify pricing and obtain detailed written quotes before engaging services.

Sean/McNeely & Son demonstrates strong professionalism across all four reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, friendliness, and straightforward communication. Pricing is characterized as fair and reasonable in three reviews, with no complaints about hidden charges or aggressive upselling. Project completion is solid, with same-day service and thorough follow-through noted. Technical skill is evident in diagnostic ability and problem-solving, though this dimension is mentioned less frequently. All reviews are positive (5-star ratings), but the sample size is small (4 reviews) and most are older than 12 months, limiting confidence in the overall score.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) — score reliability is limited
• Review recency concern: 3 of 4 reviews are from 2021 (2-3 years old); only 1 review from 2022. No recent data available to assess current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language — while not necessarily fake, the lack of any critical feedback or specificity on pricing details (exact amounts, comparison to competitors) is notable
• No negative or mixed reviews present to validate balance

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews), predominantly older review dates (mostly 2021), and absence of any critical feedback. The score reflects strong performance on available data but lacks sufficient recent evidence to confidently assess current service quality.

Arch Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a very large review base, with dozens of customers praising named technicians (Chris, Tony, Alex, Gerson, Ryan, Carlos, Jorge, Enrique, Oscar) for punctuality, friendliness, cleanliness, and technical competence. Pricing scores are tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing a non-negotiable $118 dispatch fee, a $275 cartridge replacement, a $641 water line charge billed at triple the estimated hours, and a $525 gas nipple replacement that reviewers felt was exploitative — these are explicit, credible complaints that prevent a higher pricing score. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: multiple reviews describe no-shows, abandoned bids, months-long project delays, incomplete remodel work left unfinished, a permit plan that was lost, and a plumber who failed to diagnose a problem correctly and left without resolving it — these are serious, recurring patterns that meaningfully drag the score down. The majority of reviews are recent (2024–2025), which increases confidence in the current state of the business, though the negative patterns span the full review history suggesting they are not isolated incidents.

• 23 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10 (approximately 20+ reviews on the same date) is suspicious. While the content varies somewhat, the volume of same-day 5-star reviews with no negative feedback warrants a fake review flag. Confidence in the April 2025 batch is reduced.
• Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe no-shows without notification (2022-02-18, 2022-11-25, 2019-12-19), a pattern of broken promises on bids (2021-01-28), and a major project left incomplete for months with lost permit plans (2024-02-26). These are not isolated incidents and represent a systemic project completion risk.
• Pricing complaints are specific and credible: $118 mandatory dispatch fee with no upfront disclosure, $275 for a shower cartridge swap, $641 for a basic water line, and $525 for a gas nipple replacement. These suggest inconsistent or opaque pricing practices.
• One review (2021-02-11) describes a plumber who failed to diagnose a problem correctly after multiple attempts, blamed the customer, and left the job unresolved — raising a workmanship concern not offset by the volume of positive experience reviews.
• One review (2010-10-14) describes property damage caused by the plumber's work. One review (2013-05-16) describes a roof pipe installation that caused mold damage worth $1,800 that went unresolved for over a year. These are older but serious quality and follow-through failures.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative patterns (no-shows, pricing opacity, incomplete work) appear across all time periods, suggesting they are not legacy issues that have been resolved.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total, 152 with usable data) spanning over a decade, with strong recency weighting toward 2024–2025, and carries HIGH overall confidence — however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and recurring negative patterns in pricing transparency and project completion that are not fully offset by the volume of positive reviews.