Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Moines, Iowa

Joe's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising quick response times and quality workmanship. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in professionalism and communication, with numerous complaints about late arrivals, missed appointments, and poor follow-up. Pricing is a mixed concern—while many customers report fair rates, a notable subset experienced substantial overcharges and surprise costs. The high volume of reviews (234) provides robust data, though the polarized nature of feedback (many 5-star and 1-star ratings with few middle ratings) suggests service quality varies considerably by technician or circumstance.

• POLARIZED RATING DISTRIBUTION: Unusually high concentration of 5-star and 1-star reviews with relatively few 2-4 star ratings, suggesting inconsistent service delivery or possible selection bias in review submission.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern across 15+ reviews of missed appointments, no-shows, failure to call customers about delays, and unresponsiveness to follow-up messages. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Multiple customers (8+ reviews) report surprise charges, hidden costs, or significant price increases after initial quotes. Examples include $5,800 basement replumbing for a toilet repair, $800+ unexpected upgrades, and $280+ charges for minor fittings.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATIONS: Several reviews (particularly from Angie's List deals) describe 'fully installed' services that required thousands in additional charges not disclosed upfront.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews report incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (customer had to hire another plumber to redo work), while others praise exceptional quality. Suggests variable technician skill or oversight.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER VULNERABILITY: At least 3 reviews describe situations where elderly customers were potentially taken advantage of (overcharging, poor installation leading to injury, aggressive billing practices).
• RECENCY CONSIDERATION: Most recent reviews (2024) show mixed results. Earlier reviews (2010-2014) contain more extreme complaints. Recent years show somewhat improved consistency but communication issues persist.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW MARKERS: Several reviews contain only punctuation marks or 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings, suggesting incomplete or placeholder entries. Approximately 8-10 reviews have minimal/no substantive content but 5-star ratings.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be interpreted with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the large sample size (234 reviews) and HIGH confidence across all dimensions provide statistical robustness, the deeply polarized distribution and documented systemic issues with communication and pricing transparency indicate that actual customer experience is highly variable and dependent on technician assignment, job complexity, and customer assertiveness. The score reflects an average that masks significant risk; customers should expect either excellent or poor service, not consistent mid-range performance.

Thrasher demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness across 35 reviews. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion and pricing. Multiple detailed negative reviews document incomplete work, follow-up failures, and disputed charges—particularly regarding warranty claims and parts pricing. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are overwhelmingly positive, older reviews reveal systemic issues with accountability and cost transparency. Experience ratings are solid based on technical competence, but execution consistency is undermined by documented cases of poor follow-through and customer dissatisfaction.

• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 40 of 57 reviews are from June 2025 (past 2 weeks), creating a heavily skewed dataset. Recent reviews are almost uniformly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2014-2023) contain detailed negative experiences with specific dollar amounts and unresolved issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple recent reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('prompt/quick service,' 'professional,' 'friendly,' 'great job') with minimal specificity. Reviews dated 2025-06-02 and 2025-06-05 show suspiciously generic praise without concrete details.
• CRITICAL UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Multiple reviews document serious problems: (1) Water heater replaced under warranty failed within 70 days; company refused warranty service (2024). (2) Boiler installation error billed customer $550 after admitting fault (2023). (3) Faucet repair charged $370, failed within 2 days, company refused warranty (2019). (4) Basement heating project incomplete for 2+ months with drywall damage and missing parts (2014).
• PRICING CONCERNS: Documented overcharging patterns—sump pump marked up 4x retail ($650 vs $149), faucet parts quoted at $100+ when actual cost was $12.98, bathroom remodel charged $8,500 for low-quality work. Multiple reviews cite 'under budget' but negative reviews show inflated initial quotes.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 5 reviews explicitly state company refused to honor warranties or return for follow-up service after initial work failed. This is a material breach of professional standards.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION WARNING: The overwhelming majority of recent positive reviews lack specificity and detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific with dates, dollar amounts, and names. This asymmetry suggests recent reviews may not reflect authentic customer experience distribution.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated score of 76.8 reflects the data provided, the dataset is heavily contaminated by a recent flood of generic 5-star reviews (70% of sample from past 2 weeks) that lack substantive detail, contrasting sharply with older, detailed negative reviews documenting serious unresolved issues including warranty refusals, billing disputes, and incomplete work. The true performance likely falls below 76.8; the recent review surge may represent reputation management rather than authentic customer feedback. Prospective customers should weight the detailed negative reviews (2014-2024) more heavily than recent generic praise.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with the overwhelming majority of reviews praising technicians as courteous, prompt, and communicative — including frequent emergency and after-hours responsiveness. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers noting technicians diagnosed and resolved issues quickly and knowledgeably, though a handful of negative reviews describe operator error, misdiagnosis, and work that had to be redone. Project completion is solid but meaningfully dragged down by several serious complaints: a drain snake left stuck in a pipe at the customer's expense, a $2,200 excavation job that failed to fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete, and a toilet that began leaking again within seven months with only a 30-day warranty honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describing quotes as grossly inflated, markups described as 4x fair market value, and one reviewer documenting a $3,200 water heater quote; these are partially offset by reviewers who found pricing fair or reasonable, but the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints is notable.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — HIGH: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-09 show highly repetitive patterns: extremely short text (e.g., 'Joe was great!', 'Sam was here he did great!', 'Ben L', 'Cullen great work', 'He's a legend.'), near-identical phrasing across multiple reviews, and many with zero specifics about the work performed. Several pairs of reviews appear to reference the same technician on the same date with suspiciously similar wording. These reviews inflate the review count significantly and should be treated with low confidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Ryan for honesty and integrity ('PLUMBERS with HONESTY & INTEGRITY...') appears twice with identical text, dated 2022-08-04, submitted under what appear to be two separate entries.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SERIOUS AND RECURRING: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years (2018–2024) independently describe being quoted prices 2x–4x above market rate, being charged for unnecessary work, or feeling pressured into expensive services. This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly — a drain snake left stuck in a customer's pipe requiring jackhammering at customer expense, a $2,200 excavation that did not fix the problem, a frozen pipe repair left incomplete with dispatch hanging up on the customer, and a toilet repair that failed within 7 months covered by only a 30-day warranty.
• COMMISSION DECEPTION COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly states they were told technicians do not work on commission, then discovered job postings showing commission-based pay, and requested a refund for the $99 visit fee. This raises a trust and transparency concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), which is positive for recency weighting. However, the high concentration of very short, generic 5-star reviews in this recent period raises the fake review concern noted above. Older reviews (2018–2022) tend to be more detailed and carry higher individual credibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one rated 4.0, one rated 5.0) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or incentivized short-form reviews inflating the count, a recurring and independently corroborated pattern of pricing complaints, and multiple documented workmanship failures — the true score for an unbiased customer pool may be meaningfully lower than 76.4.

Brad's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, friendliness, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing tasks. Pricing is generally described as fair and competitive, with several reviewers specifically noting no hidden charges and transparent estimates. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises legitimate concerns about professionalism failures including no-shows, failure to return calls, abandoned work, and at least one instance of a technician refusing to comply with reasonable entry requirements. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple credible accounts of unfinished work, ignored callbacks, and scheduling breakdowns. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a documented pattern of inconsistency that cannot be dismissed.

• Two reviews dated 2025-05-10 are nearly identical in phrasing ('The plumber was professional, courteous and clearly explained the work he performed') — one appears to be a duplicate or near-duplicate submission, suggesting possible review padding.
• Two reviews dated 2024-06-09 are word-for-word identical ('Once again, we received outstanding service from Brad's Plumbing...') — this is a confirmed duplicate and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• Several reviews from 2025 are very short, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great service, great work!', 'Jeremy is an absolute professional! Always does a great job!'). While not conclusive, this pattern is consistent with coached or incentivized reviews.
• Six reviews have no text at all (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe: abandoned work with no follow-up (2018, 2022), no-shows without notification (2015), refusal to return calls (2020, 2022), overcharging complaints (2018), and faulty installation causing ongoing leaks (2016). These are spread across different years and reviewers, lending them credibility.
• One 1-star review (2017) relates to a driving incident rather than service quality and was weighted minimally for professionalism only.
• Recency note: The majority of positive reviews are from 2022–2025, which is favorable. However, negative reviews also appear in recent years (2020, 2022), indicating the issues are not solely historical.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given a consistent minority of credible negative reviews describing serious service failures including abandoned work, non-communication, and no-shows — issues that are not offset by volume of praise alone.

R&R Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including repiping, slab leaks, water heater replacements, and drain issues. However, there are 6 negative reviews — several of which describe serious reliability failures including confirmed appointments with no-shows, no callbacks, and at least one instance of a repair failing within a month with the contractor subsequently going silent. One review also describes a credible overcharge incident where the contractor kept an overpayment and avoided contact. These negative patterns meaningfully reduce scores for professionalism and project completion, as they represent genuine breakdowns in service delivery rather than isolated misunderstandings. Pricing scores remain relatively strong as the majority of reviewers who mentioned cost described it as fair or reasonable, with only one pricing-related complaint.

• 6 one-star reviews describe no-show appointments, unresponsiveness, a failed repair with no callback, and a retained overpayment — these are serious reliability red flags that materially affect trustworthiness of the overall score.
• 3 reviews have no date listed and reference a plumber named 'Charles' rather than 'Rodney' — these may belong to a different contractor or business entity and could represent misattributed or erroneous reviews. They were included but treated with reduced weight.
• 2 reviews contain no text at all (only a 5-star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 with very similar generic phrasing and no specific job details raises a mild concern about review authenticity. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution.
• Several older negative reviews (2018–2021) describe a consistent pattern of no-shows and non-responsiveness. More recent reviews (2024–2025) are mostly positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the pattern has not fully disappeared — a 2024 no-show review exists as well.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is favorable. However, the no-show complaint pattern spans from 2019 through 2024, indicating it is not purely a historical issue.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but should be treated with moderate caution due to a recurring and credible pattern of no-show and non-responsiveness complaints, one verified post-repair abandonment, one financial integrity concern, and a cluster of potentially inauthentic reviews dated the same day.

Porter Plumbing has a strong overall track record across a broad set of reviews spanning 2008–2024, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and quality of work. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable or better than competitors, and most jobs were completed fully and on time. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2017 describes serious failures across nearly every dimension — including being very late, leaving a large mess, poor communication, unprofessional appearance, overpricing, and leaving the customer without water for 6 days — which meaningfully pulls scores down from what would otherwise be near-excellent ratings. The most recent review (2024) is positive and suggests continued quality service, but the gap between the 2024 review and the prior cluster of reviews limits recency confidence. Overall, the contractor performs well for small-to-medium jobs but the 2017 incident raises questions about performance on larger or more complex projects.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (2017) describes severe failures in professionalism, project completion, pricing, and workmanship — this is a significant outlier that materially impacts all dimension scores and cannot be dismissed.
• Multiple reviews reference different first names (Tom, Bill, Phil, Phillip) for what appears to be the same business — this may indicate multiple technicians operating under the Porter Plumbing name, making it difficult to attribute all reviews to a single individual's performance.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most clustered between 2008–2015. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024). Recency of data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance accurately.
• Several older 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Overall I felt confident with the work, price, and the man.' and 'I've used him three times over the last couple of years and have been pleased with his work and his price.'). While not conclusively fake, these low-detail reviews reduce confidence in the positive signal they provide.
• No reviews mention negative pricing experiences except the 1-star review, which described overpricing. The pricing score is moderated conservatively given this single negative data point against otherwise positive but sometimes vague pricing mentions.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for general trend assessment given the volume of reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the significant age of most reviews, the presence of one severe negative outlier, and the limited number of recent reviews to confirm current performance standards.