Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Moines, Iowa

Total Comfort Group demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 87.2. Professionalism is a clear strength (89.5), with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness across 52 reviews. Project completion scores well at 85.0 based on 48 mentions, though one significant 2021 water heater installation failure substantially impacts this dimension. Experience is solid at 88.0 with 32 mentions highlighting technical competence and problem-solving. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 78.0 (8 mentions), with two explicit complaints about lack of transparency regarding service call fees and unexpected charges, offsetting otherwise positive affordability feedback. The company excels at rapid response times and courteous technician behavior but shows occasional gaps in billing transparency and follow-through on complex jobs.

• One catastrophic project failure (Jan 2021 water heater installation): 2-week delay, evasive communication, unexpected charges labeled as 'modifications,' customer without hot water for extended period. This single review significantly depresses project completion confidence despite otherwise strong performance.
• Two pricing transparency complaints (Nov 2021, Jan 2021) regarding undisclosed service call fees and unexpected charges. Suggests potential systemic issue with upfront pricing communication.
• One parking/property damage complaint (Nov 2023) regarding vehicles parked in front yards violating local ordinance. Not directly related to core service dimensions but indicates operational oversight.
• Most reviews are generic praise with limited specificity (e.g., 'Excellent', 'Awesome', 'Great'). However, this is offset by numerous detailed positive reviews with specific technician names and job descriptions, reducing fake review risk.
• Review recency: 47 of 75 reviews (63%) are from 2020-2021; only 8 reviews from 2024. Older data may not reflect current operations.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (32-52 mentions each), but should be interpreted with caution: the score masks a critical project completion failure and recurring pricing transparency issues that disproportionately affect customer trust, despite excellent day-to-day professionalism and responsiveness.

Jackson Construction demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 87.2, driven primarily by exceptional project completion (91.0) and solid professionalism (88.5). The contractor consistently delivers on-time work, maintains clear communication, and demonstrates high-quality craftsmanship across bathroom and kitchen renovations. Pricing is the weakest dimension (78.0) with mixed feedback—some customers praise competitive rates while others note higher costs, though most acknowledge value justifies expense. One significantly negative 2022 review citing confrontational behavior and scheduling issues creates a notable outlier, but is substantially outweighed by 23 positive reviews spanning 2008–2024. Most reviews are older than 12 months, which slightly limits recency assessment.

• One highly negative 2022 review (1-star) describing confrontational behavior and poor communication stands in stark contrast to overwhelmingly positive feedback. This suggests either a significant service decline/recovery or isolated incident. Recommend treating with caution.
• Multiple reviews from 2019 and earlier (majority of dataset) lack recent validation. Only 1 review from 2024 and 1 from 2022 provide recent data points.
• Pricing feedback is inconsistent: some reviews call pricing 'competitive' or 'moderately high but fair,' while one 2014 review explicitly states bid was '$6k higher' than competitor. This suggests pricing may vary significantly by project scope or has changed over time.
• Several reviews use very similar phrasing ('would hire again,' 'highly recommend,' 'excellent work') but appear genuine given specific project details and dates spanning 16 years. No strong evidence of fake reviews detected.

This score is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to 25 usable reviews with consistent positive feedback across professionalism, completion, and experience dimensions. However, the 2022 negative review and age of most data (pre-2023) warrant caution; recent performance should be verified independently before committing to a major project.

Complete Plumbing Services earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising Sal and his crew for responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship. Professionalism is the most frequently cited dimension, with dozens of reviewers specifically noting courteous behavior, timely arrivals, and clear communication. Pricing scores well with many reviewers explicitly comparing Sal favorably against competitors and noting honest, transparent quotes. Project completion is solid but tempered by four notable negative reviews describing unfinished work, a callback that was never honored, a faulty installation that leaked within six months and was charged again to fix, and a failed installation visit — these meaningfully reduce the project completion score. Experience scores highly based on specific technical praise across complex jobs including tankless water heaters, gas lines, full repipes, and permitted inspections that passed without issue.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A large number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews on 2022-08-24, 2022-05-25, 2021-06-28, 2021-06-03, 2021-05-26, 2021-03-06, 2021-03-01, 2016-04-08, 2016-06-18, and many others). These duplicates have been counted as single unique reviews for scoring purposes and inflate the total review count significantly.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews reference Sal, Salvador, Jeff, Brad, Richard, Nick, Shannon, Mike, Marty, and Skippy — suggesting this profile may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses or locations operating under the 'Complete Plumbing Services' name, which reduces confidence that all reviews reflect the same team or service quality.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS WITH SERIOUS CONCERNS: Four 1-star reviews describe: (1) a $400 charge for a sink repair that was not fixed, followed by a demand for another $200-$400 to complete the job; (2) a technician who could not diagnose a heating/hot water issue, overcharged for a thermostat, and then became unreachable; (3) a leaking faucet repair that was not fixed and the plumber stopped responding for 3+ weeks; (4) a failed water heater installation where the technician did not check power supply, then the company became unavailable for follow-up despite advertising 24-hour service.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2021–2025, which is positive. However, a cluster of reviews from 2016–2019 reference different named technicians (Marty, Mike, Brad, Nick) suggesting possible business ownership or staffing changes over time.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• ONE REVIEW (2020-08-25) noted a voicemail box that was perpetually full, raising a minor responsiveness concern.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate review patterns, multiple technician identities suggesting possible profile aggregation, and four credible negative reviews describing incomplete work, billing disputes, and post-job unresponsiveness that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong positive record.

Guardian Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (85.2) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication. Project completion scores (84.1) reflect reliable follow-through and same-day service capabilities. Experience ratings (83.5) show solid technical competency and problem-solving ability. Pricing presents the weakest dimension (76.8), with recurring complaints about high costs despite quality work, though many customers acknowledge fair value. The company benefits from extensive positive review volume, particularly from loyal, repeat customers praising owner Tony and team members like Joshua.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-02, 2025-05-30, and 2025-05-23 contain nearly identical phrasing ('thoroughly impressed with the plumber's professionalism and expertise,' 'tip-top shape,' 'recommend this service highly') suggesting potential review manipulation or template-based submissions. These appear to be artificially generated.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Approximately 80+ reviews appear as exact or near-exact duplicates (same text, different dates or identical text on same date), indicating either data entry errors or systematic review padding. Examples include reviews from 2024-08-03, 2024-07-10, 2024-05-28, 2023-12-06, 2023-11-20, 2023-10-28, 2023-10-25, 2023-10-17, 2023-09-21, 2023-09-20, 2023-09-14, 2023-09-04, 2023-08-26, 2023-06-26, 2023-06-29, and many others.
• MIXED COMPANY ATTRIBUTION: Several reviews reference different company names (Guardian Plumbing, Green Garden Plumbers, Guardian Electric, CW Plumbing, Rescue Rooter) suggesting either multiple businesses, rebranding, or data aggregation errors. This creates ambiguity about which company is being reviewed.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Multiple 1-star reviews describe serious issues including billing fraud ($5.95 charge for no service), property damage ($30,000 kitchen replacement), threatening behavior by owner, and failure to complete work. These are substantive complaints that significantly impact trust despite high volume of positive reviews.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Two detailed 0.5-star reviews document severe communication breakdowns (90+ minutes late, unanswered emergency line, no courtesy calls) contradicting the company's otherwise strong professionalism scores.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Numerous reviews (both positive and negative) mention pricing concerns. Some customers report being charged $400+ for under 1 hour of work, while others praise 'fair' pricing for identical services, suggesting inconsistent or non-transparent pricing practices.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2018-2023 with significant volume from 2019-2020. Only ~50 reviews from past 12 months (2025), which may not reflect current operations.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe owner (Adam/Tony) as rude, threatening, or dishonest, including allegations of calling building inspectors to pressure payment and denying responsibility for damage. One detailed 1-star review from 2022-10-18 documents predatory billing practices.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score is supported by substantial positive review volume (500+ 5-star reviews) and consistent praise for core competencies, the presence of systematic duplicate reviews, suspicious template-based submissions, serious unresolved complaints about billing and owner conduct, and significant pricing inconsistencies suggest the overall rating may be artificially inflated. The company demonstrates genuine technical competency and professionalism in execution, but customer experience appears highly variable depending on pricing transparency, communication, and which team member is assigned. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates and clarify pricing structure before engagement.

Herr Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with 18 reviews explicitly praising these qualities. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and to specification, though one significant negative review (2012-02-01) involving a 4-day water heater failure and disputed charges creates material concern. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and transparent, though the company's highest bid was justified by detailed scope. Technical skill and workmanship quality are consistently praised across diverse job types. The company's main weakness is the single severe service failure that was not resolved to customer satisfaction.

• One critical negative review (2012-02-01, rating 1.0) describing 4-day service failure and refusal to credit first trip charge—this is a significant outlier that materially impacts project completion confidence
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (22 of 27 reviews predate 2015); only 1 review from past 12 months—recency of data is a concern
• Review from 2007-07-16 (rating 3.0) suggests company may struggle with larger/complex projects
• One review (2014-01-10, rating 4.0) mentions scheduling coordination challenges on customer side, not company fault
• Review from 2011-03-22 notes company was late despite 5-star rating, suggesting some punctuality inconsistency

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of most reviews (primarily 2007-2015) and the presence of one severe unresolved service failure that contradicts the otherwise positive pattern; the HIGH confidence is supported by consistent mention counts across dimensions, but the 12+ year gap since most reviews limits applicability to current service quality.

DDS Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with a WW Score of 82.1. The company excels in professionalism (85.2), with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous staff, and responsive communication across 98 reviews. Project completion is solid at 82.8 with 89 mentions, though some older reviews note occasional follow-up issues. Pricing scores 81.5 across 67 mentions, reflecting generally fair and transparent pricing, though a handful of customers report overcharging or unnecessary upsells. Experience is rated 83.3 with strong technical knowledge demonstrated by named technicians like Scott, Garrett, and Don. However, the company shows inconsistency: while most reviews are highly positive, a notable minority (approximately 8-10 negative reviews) report serious issues including poor communication, misdiagnosis, and billing disputes, suggesting quality control variability.

• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Stark contrast between majority 5-star reviews and minority 1-star reviews suggests either highly variable service quality or potential selection bias in review platform. Negative reviews cite specific failures (miscommunication, overcharging, misdiagnosis) that are not generic complaints.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews (2018-2020 era) report difficulty reaching the company by phone, with customers unable to get callbacks despite multiple attempts. This pattern appears in at least 4-5 reviews spanning several years.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Several reviews mention that work had to be redone or that other plumbers found DDS's diagnoses incorrect (e.g., 2016-02-01 review claiming $10,000 unnecessary estimate; 2014-03-21 review claiming misdiagnosis of drain issue). This suggests inconsistent technician expertise.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2014-2018 period. Only ~20% of reviews are from 2023-2024, limiting confidence in current service quality. Recent reviews (2024) are uniformly positive, but sample size is small.
• NAMED TECHNICIAN DEPENDENCY: Positive reviews frequently mention specific technicians (Scott, Garrett, Don, Sean) by name with high praise, while negative reviews sometimes reference unnamed or different technicians. This suggests service quality may be heavily dependent on which technician is assigned.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: While not conclusive, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('exceeded expectations,' 'honest and dependable,' 'highly recommend') and lack specific detail. However, most reviews contain sufficient specificity to appear genuine.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuinely strong average performance supported by 150 reviews and high mention counts across all dimensions, the significant minority of serious negative reviews (8-10 one-star ratings citing misdiagnosis, overcharging, and communication failures) indicates that customer experience is inconsistent and may depend heavily on which technician is assigned and current operational capacity. The company appears capable of excellent work but has documented quality control and communication issues that warrant careful consideration before hiring.