Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

E&M Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, communication, and responsiveness (5 mentions). Pricing is generally favorable with transparent quotes and fair rates (4 mentions), though one 2019 review reports a negative experience with a $120 diagnostic fee and incomplete service. Project completion is solid with thorough work and follow-through documented (4 mentions), though the 1-star review raises concerns about job abandonment. Technical skill and problem-solving are evident across reviews (3 mentions). The overall score is tempered by recency concerns—most positive reviews are from 2012–2021, with limited recent data, and one significant negative outlier from 2019.

• Recency concern: 4 of 6 reviews are older than 3 years (2012–2021). Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2019. Limited recent performance data.
• One significant negative outlier (1-star, 2019): customer charged $120 diagnostic fee and company could not complete job, referred customer elsewhere. This contradicts the otherwise consistent positive pattern.
• Potential review age bias: The two oldest reviews (2012) contain unusually detailed praise and mention hand-written thank-you cards—while genuine, they may not reflect current operations.
• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical confidence despite consistency in positive reviews.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the positive reviews are detailed and specific, the small sample size, significant age of most data, and one credible negative experience reduce confidence. The score reflects strong historical performance but may not accurately represent current service quality.

Performance Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time, communicate well, and demonstrate solid technical skill across a wide range of jobs including complex remodels, slab leaks, water heater replacements, and septic work. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describing abandoned estimates, unreturned calls, incomplete jobs, and at least one instance of a plumber leaving without resolving the issue. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call costs fair or reasonable, a notable minority — including multiple detailed complaints — describe sticker shock, book-rate pricing that felt excessive, undisclosed charges, and rates described as 350% above competitors, pulling the pricing score down significantly. The overall score reflects a genuinely capable and often excellent company that has real and recurring weaknesses in responsiveness, follow-through on estimates, and pricing transparency that prevent a higher rating.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Remember back in the good old days...' (Shayna and Nate) appears verbatim twice — once dated 2023-06-07 and once dated 2023-03-10. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Performance Plumbing is TOP NOTCH! They just completed a bathroom renovation...' appears nearly verbatim twice — once dated 2023-06-07 and once dated 2022-08-09. Counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Horrible. Could not finish the job the first day...' appears verbatim twice — once dated 2016-08-11 with a timestamp and once dated 2016-08-11 without. Counted only once.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct named technicians, owners, and office staff across what appear to be geographically separate locations (Hawaii, San Francisco, St. Louis/Missouri, Albuquerque NM, Norfolk VA, Canton OH). It is likely these reviews cover more than one business operating under the name 'Performance Plumbing.' Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may aggregate multiple distinct companies.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple 1-star reviews across different time periods cite the same failure mode: unreturned calls, missed appointments, and no-shows. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — PRICING: Multiple detailed 1-to-3-star reviews across different years describe pricing as significantly above market rate, use of opaque 'book pricing,' and charges that were not clearly disclosed upfront. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One review (2020-11-14) alleges theft of $5,000 by an employee named Alan. This could not be verified and may relate to a different entity, but is flagged for transparency.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One review (2014-08-13) alleges fraudulent billing for hours not worked and threatening a lien. Flagged for transparency.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2003 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly 5-star with high specificity and appear credible. Older reviews (pre-2018) carry less weight in the score calculation but were used to identify recurring patterns.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single period as text with 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (200 total) spanning over two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted with caution due to the likely aggregation of multiple geographically distinct businesses under the same name, the presence of duplicate reviews, and a consistent pattern of serious negative feedback around pricing transparency and responsiveness that coexists with the predominantly positive majority.

Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension across this large review set, with dozens of customers explicitly citing courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name (Willie, Parker, Rafael, Kevin, Michael, Humberto, Jim, Russ, and others). Project completion scores well overall — the majority of reviewers confirm jobs were finished same-day or within the scheduled visit — but is tempered by one credible complaint of a job declared fixed that was not, a BBB complaint filed, and one no-show/no-call incident. Experience is consistently praised, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnosis, problem-solving in difficult conditions, and quality workmanship. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing reasonable or affordable, there are multiple credible negative reviews citing charges of $500–$800 for relatively minor repairs, lack of price transparency, and billing for time not worked — these are specific, detailed complaints that meaningfully drag the pricing score down.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A significant number of reviews (approximately 35+) contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating labeled 'unknown' or blank. These provide zero usable data and inflate the raw star average without contributing evidence. They were excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Very trustworthy and reliable.', 'Very professional and curtious', 'Great service & very professional manner.') with no specifics. While not conclusive, the volume of such reviews warrants caution.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names — 'Preferred Plumbing', 'My Plumber / MyPlumber Inc.', and possibly others. Technician names span a very wide range (Willie, Parker, Rafael Sr/Jr, Kevin, Humberto, Ryan, Dennis, Tom, Michael, Jim, Russ, Don, Barry, Freddie, Collin, Chaz, Fred Garcia, etc.), suggesting this may be an aggregated profile across multiple companies or franchises. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Oct 2024) contains an extremely serious allegation — sexual harassment, refusal to leave the premises, attempted theft, and property damage. This review is highly specific in detail and geography. If credible, it represents a significant safety concern. It was factored into professionalism and project completion scoring.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Jul 2023) alleges the company lied about completing a repair, took payment, refused to refund, and did not respond to a BBB complaint. This is a credible, specific complaint that directly impacts project completion scoring.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: Multiple pricing complaints are specific and credible — $500 charged for a running toilet with alleged time inflation (Oct 2024), $800 for a faucet/valve repair with no price breakdown (Sep 2021), $175 for aerator cleaning plus $49 service call for an unresolved issue (May 2023), and a former employee review alleging the company does 'shitty work' and takes shortcuts (Mar 2019). These are not vague complaints and were weighted accordingly.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Aug 2015) describes a no-show with no proactive communication — the customer had to call to get an update and was still stood up. This negatively impacts professionalism scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of reviews (roughly 60+) are older than 5 years, with some dating back to 2003–2012. More recent reviews (2024–2025) are given higher weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) are particularly significant as they reflect current business practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews with no date were treated as lower weight due to inability to assess recency.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (155 total, ~120 with usable text) spanning over 20 years, providing HIGH statistical confidence in the directional scores, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by: the likely aggregation of multiple distinct business entities under one profile, a non-trivial cluster of credible negative reviews on pricing and project completion, a serious unverified harassment allegation, and a large number of blank or content-free 5-star submissions that suggest possible review padding.

Zoom Drain demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven primarily by excellent professionalism (82.5) and solid project completion rates (81.0). Technicians are consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with numerous customers citing costs as excessive or overpriced relative to work performed. Experience scores are solid (79.5), reflecting genuine expertise in drain and sewer work, though some customers report incomplete diagnostics or unnecessary upselling. The company shows strong responsiveness and same-day service availability, which customers value highly.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 156 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Many reviews explicitly state prices are 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples include $500+ for simple drain snaking, $638 for a quote without service, and $1000+ for jobs completed elsewhere for $200-300. This is the most frequently cited complaint.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 25 reviews document missed appointments, no-call/no-shows, or failure to meet promised time windows. Customers report waiting full appointment windows (4-6 hours) with no technician arrival and poor communication from dispatch.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews (15+) describe situations where initial service failed to fully resolve problems, requiring expensive return visits or customers hiring competitors to finish the job. Some customers report being charged for 'attempts' that didn't work.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Approximately 20 reviews suggest technicians recommend expensive solutions (full pipe replacement, hydro-jetting, etc.) when simpler/cheaper fixes would suffice. Some customers report being pressured into higher-cost options.
• DAMAGE AND LIABILITY ISSUES: At least 8 reviews document property damage (sprinkler pipes, water mains, driveways, electrical lines) caused by Zoom technicians, with the company refusing to cover repair costs or claiming 'not responsible per contract.'
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor follow-up (missing estimates, unreturned calls, no response to complaints), particularly from management and administrative staff.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician competence noted. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Johnny Rodriguez, Ian, Kyle, Maurice) while others describe inexperienced or unknowledgeable technicians sent to the same locations.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 80-100 reviews are extremely generic 5-star ratings with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!' 'Excellent!' 'Highly recommend!') and no substantive information. Many lack dates or contain identical phrasing. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews and specific complaints suggests these are not entirely fabricated—rather, the company may be actively soliciting reviews post-service (one review explicitly mentions aggressive review-hunting via text/call within 24 hours).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2023-2025 (past 12 months), with a concentration in June 2023 and January-June 2025. Older reviews (2014-2020) tend to be more positive, suggesting potential service quality decline or increased customer expectations.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple states (PA, CA, NJ, NC, TX, UT, CO, etc.), suggesting this is a franchise or multi-location operation. Quality and pricing may vary significantly by location.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while Zoom Drain demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism in technical execution, the consistent and detailed complaints about pricing (appearing in 13% of reviews) and scheduling failures (2% of reviews) represent material service gaps. The company excels at the core plumbing work but struggles with business operations and pricing transparency. Customers should obtain multiple quotes before engaging and clarify pricing in writing beforehand. The score reflects strong technical capability undermined by significant operational and pricing concerns.

Drain Masters demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual service, friendly technicians, and clear communication across 187 mentions. Project completion is solid at 81.0, with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, though some no-show incidents and warranty disputes appear in negative reviews. Experience scores well at 80.5, reflecting skilled technicians and effective problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0 across 89 mentions, with recurring complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, upselling, and quotes that don't match final bills. This pricing concern substantially impacts the overall WW Score despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees, and significant discrepancies between quoted and final prices. Examples include $250 quoted vs $573 charged, $2200 for water heater installation, and $400+ diagnostic fees. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Approximately 35 one-star and two-star reviews detail serious issues including flood damage from improper installation, unlicensed technicians, no-shows to scheduled appointments (multiple instances), and refusal to honor warranties. Several reviews mention BBB complaints and legal threats.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple locations (Santa Barbara, San Jose, Anchorage, Daytona, Modesto, Sacramento, St. Louis, etc.), suggesting either multiple franchises or locations under the same name. Some reviews explicitly warn about confusion between different Drain Masters companies.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews report warranty claims denied or disputed, with customers charged for follow-up visits on the same issue within warranty period.
• LICENSING CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews mention unlicensed or out-of-state licensed technicians performing work, raising legal and safety questions.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 reviews document scheduled appointments with no-shows and no communication, contradicting the strong professionalism scores.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW MARKERS: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the extremely high concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 70% of total) combined with the severity and specificity of negative reviews suggests possible review manipulation or multiple business locations with vastly different quality standards.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and project completion scores are well-supported by 150+ mentions each, the pricing dimension reveals a systemic pattern of customer dissatisfaction that significantly undermines trust. The presence of serious negative reviews documenting flood damage, licensing violations, and no-shows, combined with geographic inconsistency and warranty disputes, suggests this company may have quality control or management issues that vary by location. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed, itemized written quotes and clarifying all fees upfront before engaging this company.

Hoffman Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual arrivals, courteous technicians, and responsive communication across 156 mentions. Project completion is solid at 81.0, with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, though some reviews cite incomplete work or follow-up issues. Technical experience scores 80.5 based on 118 mentions of skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0 across 67 mentions—customers frequently report high service fees ($195+ minimums), substantial markups on parts (25-100%), and surprise charges not disclosed upfront. The company excels in responsiveness and emergency service but struggles with transparent pricing communication.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) explicitly mention surprise charges, undisclosed fees, high markups on parts, and lack of upfront pricing disclosure. This is the most consistent complaint pattern.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews report incomplete work, equipment failures during service, or need for callbacks/rework (reviews from 2024-03-09, 2024-10-12, 2022-11-22, 2022-08-27 detail significant issues).
• SCHEDULING CHALLENGES: Multiple reviews note difficulty getting appointments, long wait times (6+ weeks mentioned), and occasional no-shows or rescheduling issues.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 16 reviews with ratings of 1-2 stars contain serious allegations including credit card fraud concerns, unprofessional owner behavior, equipment damage without accountability, and overcharging for failed work.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail, suggesting possible review clustering or selection bias. Older reviews (2015-2019) show more balanced feedback.
• REGIONAL VARIATION: Some reviews reference Lake Tahoe location with notably poor service; unclear if same company or franchise.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing overall service quality but should be interpreted with caution regarding pricing—the company's professionalism and technical competence are well-supported by high-confidence data, but customers should expect higher costs and should request detailed pricing breakdowns before authorizing work.