Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Moines, Iowa

AAA Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a deeply mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately — the majority of reviewers praise courteous, prompt, and friendly technicians by name (Rob, Jesse, Chad, Steve, Lee, Stan), but a meaningful minority of reviews describe serious failures including rude office staff, no-shows, missed callbacks, threatening customers with collections, and one incident of smoking on the job. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe being overcharged, receiving inconsistent quotes, or finding the same work done for a fraction of the price elsewhere — though a smaller number praise fair or upfront pricing. Project completion is also mixed — many jobs are described as completed thoroughly and on time, but there are credible, detailed accounts of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unfixed problem, work left incomplete after full payment ($27,000 job), and warranty disputes. Experience scores somewhat better, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe plumbers who did not know what they were doing or could not diagnose basic issues.

• 23 reviews contain no text (blank or single-character entries such as 'unknown', '.', 'l', 'well', 'great') and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute only to raw review count.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2023-06-10 and 2021-06-10 with no timestamps (only date) may indicate batch imports from a third-party platform rather than organic submissions — treat with moderate caution.
• Several highly positive reviews are generic and lack specifics (e.g., 'Great service', 'Very professional', 'Excellent experience overall') — these were counted for professionalism mentions but weighted conservatively.
• The review corpus spans from 2006 to 2025, meaning a large portion of reviews (pre-2023) are more than 12 months old. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show a notable deterioration in professionalism and project completion scores, suggesting the company's quality may have declined.
• The most recent high-detail negative review (Dec 2024, 1-star) describes an 8-year business relationship ending due to aggressive collections behavior, incompetent plumbers, and poor communication — this is given elevated weight due to recency and specificity.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, but the volume of generic 5-star reviews with no detail warrants conservative scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, 140 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the score's direction, but users should note that recent reviews trend more negatively and the score may overstate current service quality due to the weight of older positive reviews.

Rooter Ranger presents a deeply polarized review profile. On the positive side, a large volume of customers praise individual technicians by name for being professional, friendly, knowledgeable, and prompt, and many report satisfaction with the advertised drain-clearing specials at fair prices. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of serious negative reviews significantly drags down every dimension: scheduling failures and no-shows are among the most frequently cited complaints, with dozens of customers reporting they waited hours or full days without technicians arriving or communicating. Pricing is a major liability, with numerous reviewers — including contractors and repeat customers — reporting quotes that were two to ten times higher than competitors for identical work, and several alleging outright deceptive upselling tactics. Project completion is also heavily penalized by reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved leaks after service, warranty refusals, and multi-day jobs that stretched into weeks. The experience dimension is mixed: while many individual technicians are praised for skill, there are credible accounts of misdiagnosis, damage caused during service, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant number of reviews are blank (rating only, no text), nearly all of which are 5-star. These provide no usable data and inflate the raw star average without substantive evidence. They have been excluded from scoring.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — HIGH CONCERN: A recurring and specific pattern across many independent reviews describes supervisors or field managers arriving after initial technicians and presenting dramatically inflated quotes (ranging from $3,000 to $40,000+) for work that second-opinion plumbers completed for a fraction of the price. This pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN — HIGH CONCERN: Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations describe the same failure mode: confirmed appointments, no technician arrival, no proactive communication, and customers having to repeatedly call in to get updates. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties, failing to return calls after damage was caused during service, and ghosting customers who requested invoices or refunds. Several reviewers mention filing complaints with the Arizona ROC or BBB.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2019 to June 2025. The no-show and upselling complaints are present throughout the entire date range, indicating these are persistent structural issues rather than isolated past problems. The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) continue to show both strong positive individual technician praise and serious scheduling/communication failures.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: At least two reviews allege that technicians offered discounts in exchange for 5-star reviews before work was completed, which is a direct manipulation of the review record and reduces confidence in the overall star rating.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously: the company's performance is highly variable depending on which technician is dispatched and whether the job is simple or complex, and the persistent patterns of no-shows, aggressive upselling, and post-service abandonment represent genuine and documented risks for any prospective customer.

Schaal demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in customer interactions, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, friendliness, and thoroughness. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews document charges substantially higher than competitors for identical work, with allegations of upselling, fear-based sales tactics, and lack of transparency in quotes. Project completion shows mixed results, with some installations executed smoothly but others delayed or incomplete. The stark divide between recent 5-star reviews (mostly 2025, many with minimal detail) and detailed negative reviews from 2016–2022 raises concerns about review authenticity and suggests potential service quality deterioration or inconsistency over time.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40 reviews from June 2025 and May 2025 are predominantly 5-star ratings with minimal or no detail (empty text fields, single-sentence praise like 'Nate was great!' or 'Awesome job with Cooper!!!!'). This clustering of vague, enthusiastic reviews in a narrow recent timeframe is inconsistent with organic review distribution and suggests potential review manipulation or incentivized submissions.
• PRICING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple detailed negative reviews (2016–2022) document pricing practices described as 'highway robbery,' 'scam,' and 'rip-off.' Specific examples include: $1,131 vs. $642 for same board replacement; $8,000+ vs. $2,000 for sink installation; $1,800 vs. $325–$375 for TXV valve replacement; $1,200 for thermostat replacement. Pattern suggests systematic overcharging or aggressive upselling.
• REVIEW REMOVAL ALLEGATIONS: Multiple customers explicitly state their negative reviews were removed from Google (2021, 2022), suggesting potential review suppression or manipulation.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and detailed negative reviews from 2016–2022 describing dishonesty, fear tactics, incomplete work, and poor follow-up. This temporal divide suggests either significant company changes or review authenticity issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews document unfinished jobs (humidifier not reattached, water heater installation defects, AC unit damaged during service, parts not ordered for weeks) and lack of response to customer complaints.
• RECENCY BIAS: 32% of reviews are from June 2025 alone, heavily skewing recent perception. Reviews older than 2 years (pre-2023) show more detailed, credible negative feedback. Current score may not reflect actual service quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Repetitive generic praise ('very knowledgeable,' 'very professional,' 'very friendly'), identical phrasing across multiple reviews, named technicians with no context, and absence of specific service details in recent reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in customer interactions, the score is heavily distorted by a suspicious cluster of recent, vague 5-star reviews that appear inconsistent with organic review patterns. The persistent and detailed pricing allegations across multiple years (2016–2022), combined with customer reports of review removal and incomplete follow-up, suggest the company may engage in aggressive sales practices and lack transparency. The HIGH confidence in individual dimensions is undermined by LOW confidence in the overall dataset authenticity. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes, verify pricing with competitors, and review the detailed negative feedback from 2016–2022 before engaging this company.

Greenwood's Sewer Service shows a deeply inconsistent performance pattern. While technicians demonstrate strong technical skill and pricing is fair and transparent, professionalism is severely compromised by chronic communication failures, missed appointments, and unprofessional office conduct. Recent reviews (2024, 2022) document repeated scheduling breakdowns and lack of follow-up, while older positive reviews (2019-2020) suggest the company once maintained better standards. Project completion is mixed—work is done well when technicians arrive, but reliability in actually showing up is questionable. The company excels in pricing and technical expertise but fails fundamentally in customer service and accountability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are recent (2024, 2022, 2015), while most positive reviews are older (2019-2020, 2011-2012). This suggests significant service degradation over time.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2015-10-28 at 20:21:44 and 18:29:48 are nearly identical (same incident, same wording), indicating either a system error or intentional duplicate posting. Counted as separate reviews but represent single incident.
• PATTERN OF COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 11 of 14 reviews mention professionalism; 6 explicitly cite communication problems, missed appointments, or unprofessional office staff. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising specific staff (Michelle, Mike, Alex) and scathing 1-star reviews citing same office staff (Michele) as unprofessional. Suggests quality depends heavily on which staff member handles the call.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to significant recency bias (recent reviews are predominantly negative) and evidence of service degradation over time. The company's technical competence is well-established, but professionalism and reliability have deteriorated substantially in the past 2-3 years, making recent negative reviews more predictive of current performance than older positive ones.

Clog Busters demonstrates strong technical professionalism and skilled workmanship, with technicians consistently praised for politeness, knowledge, and efficient problem-solving. However, the company is severely undermined by aggressive and deceptive pricing practices. Multiple reviews document bait-and-switch tactics where customers are quoted only a trip charge upfront, then presented with tiered service options ($200–$1,800) on-site with no prior disclosure. Project completion is mixed: while technicians execute work competently, several customers report clogs returning within days despite warranty claims, and one customer was never served at all. The pricing model—combining trip fees, time-based service tiers, and undisclosed credit card surcharges—creates justified customer resentment that overshadows technical competence.

• CRITICAL: Systematic bait-and-switch pricing pattern documented in 6 of 16 reviews (37.5%). Customers consistently report being quoted only trip charges ($59–$160) by phone, then presented with service tiers ($200–$1,800) on-site with no prior disclosure.
• Deceptive pricing practices: Multiple reviews confirm time-based service options where customers must pay additional fees if work exceeds allocated time (e.g., 2-hour blocks). Credit card surcharges mentioned but not disclosed upfront.
• Warranty claims questioned: At least 2 reviews report clogs returning within 4–14 days despite stated 1–2 year warranties. Customers report difficulty obtaining warranty service.
• No-show incident: One review (2021-04-08) documents complete failure to appear for scheduled appointment with no communication.
• Inconsistent service quality: Positive reviews (5-star) are generic and lack specifics (e.g., 'absolute best,' 'great job'). Negative reviews are detailed and specific about pricing deception. This asymmetry suggests possible review manipulation or selection bias.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews cluster in 2022–2024 (recent), while older positive reviews (2021–2022) lack detail. Recent pattern suggests pricing practices may have worsened or become more systematized.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution despite MODERATE overall confidence. While technical professionalism and experience scores are supported by substantial evidence, the pricing dimension is driven by systematic complaints of deceptive practices that directly contradict the company's stated business model. The score reflects a company with genuine technical skill but serious ethical and transparency issues that create customer harm. Customers should expect competent work but should be prepared for aggressive upselling and pricing tactics not disclosed during initial contact.

DL Plumbing has a clearly split reputation across its reviews. Positive reviewers consistently praise Danny's responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, and technical competence across a range of jobs including repipes, tankless water heaters, and drain work. However, multiple negative reviews raise serious concerns: a no-show without communication, a 6-hour delay on an emergency call with an unreachable mailbox, disputed and potentially deceptive billing practices across multiple customers, and a complaint about incomplete work requiring a third-party contractor to finish. The billing complaints are particularly detailed and credible, describing double-billing, undisclosed labor charges, and warranty repair charges — these significantly drag down the pricing and project completion scores. The positive reviews are enthusiastic but the negative ones are specific and substantive, preventing a high overall score.

• Several positive reviews use very enthusiastic, generic praise with limited job-specific detail (e.g., 'PLEEEEAAAAASSSEEEE hire him'), which may indicate some reviews are from personal connections rather than arm's-length customers.
• Multiple reviews appear to reference different business entities or operators — some mention 'Danny' and 'DL Plumbing' while others reference 'D & L Plumbing' with 'Tom' and a multi-technician team. These may be two distinct businesses conflated in this review set, which could distort scoring in either direction.
• Several reviews are significantly older than 12 months — 7 reviews date from 2016–2020 and 2 from 2017–2019 with serious billing complaints. Recency weighting applied: older negative billing reviews are noted but treated with slightly reduced weight given possible business changes.
• The 1-star review from 2021-01-07 describes a no-show with no communication after a confirmed appointment — a serious project completion failure that is credible and specific.
• The 1-star review from 2019-11-01 is highly detailed and credible, describing multiple billing irregularities including undisclosed technician charges, disputed labor hours, and a subcontractor charge not communicated upfront.
• The 1-star review from 2018-02-05 describes a long-term pattern of double billing, warranty charge abuse, and poor customer service resolution — also credible and specific.
• Possible entity mismatch: reviews referencing 'D & L Plumbing' with billing disputes and multi-technician crews may represent a different or larger operation than the solo operator 'Danny' praised in more recent reviews. Scores reflect the full dataset as provided.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews spanning 2014–2022 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderated by a likely entity mismatch between two possibly distinct businesses, a cluster of detailed and credible negative reviews around billing and no-shows, and some positive reviews that lack specificity.