Find Nearby Plumbers In Sioux City, Iowa

Moos Plumbing earns strong marks across most dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, friendliness, and prompt service — particularly for water heater replacements. Pricing transparency is a genuine positive, with multiple reviewers noting fair rates and one technician actively directing a customer toward insurance savings. However, several serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores: one review describes a technician breaking a shutoff valve causing flooding, a poor repair job, and an owner who refused to discuss damages; another describes rude phone interactions and a failed toilet repair; and a third describes a dismissive 'we're booked up' response with no attempt to help. These are not minor complaints — they represent failures in professionalism, project completion, and customer care. The high volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews also reduces confidence in the overall picture.

• 25 of 65 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These provide no usable data and inflate the apparent review count without supporting any dimension score.
• Several text-only reviews are extremely generic ('Great service!', 'Excellent service!', 'Everything was great') with no specifics. These may reflect real customers but contribute minimal scoring evidence.
• One serious 1-star review (2017) describes property damage caused by a broken shutoff valve, a failed repair, an unresponsive company overnight, a substandard fix noted by a second plumber, and an owner who told the customer to leave the office. This is a significant red flag.
• A 2016 1-star review describes unprofessional handling of carpet damage caused by Moos employees, including ignored calls, a confrontational owner, and the owner hanging up on the customer.
• A 2013 2-star review describes a rude phone interaction and a failed toilet repair that was not honored without additional charge.
• A 2024 1-star review describes being told 'we're booked up' with no attempt to schedule or assist — poor responsiveness.
• A 2024 1-star review states calls were never returned.
• The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2019 or earlier, with recent positive reviews being mostly generic or blank. Recency weighting slightly reduces confidence in sustained quality.
• No fake review pattern detected beyond generic phrasing — the negative reviews appear authentic and specific, lending credibility to the overall dataset.

This WW Score is based on a large review set but is significantly diluted by 25 blank reviews and several generic one-liners; the score should be treated as a reasonable directional indicator, but the presence of multiple credible, detailed negative reviews — including property damage and owner misconduct — warrants caution before hiring.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.

Foulk Brothers demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, courteous behavior, and follow-through on callbacks. However, significant pricing concerns emerge from explicit complaints about markups (charging $239.84 for a $56.78 part) and refusal to service third-party equipment, which undermines customer trust. The company shows good technical skill and willingness to stand behind work, but the pricing dimension is severely compromised by documented overcharging practices. Recency is a concern—most substantive reviews are 5+ years old, with recent reviews (2022) highlighting negative pricing experiences.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Review from 2022-11-07 documents extreme markup ($239.84 vs $56.78 retail), suggesting systematic overpricing practices.
• BUSINESS PRACTICE CONCERN: 2017 review indicates company refuses to service third-party equipment, limiting customer choice and potentially driving away business.
• DATA QUALITY ISSUE: Three reviews contain only 'unknown' or blank text with 5-star ratings (2015, 2014 dates), suggesting possible fake or placeholder reviews. One review (2013-02-17) about missing Christmas lights appears unrelated to plumbing services.
• RECENCY PROBLEM: Most detailed positive reviews are 9-12 years old (2012-2013). Recent reviews (2022, 2017) contain significant complaints. This suggests declining service quality or changing business practices over time.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: Multiple reviews lack substantive detail, reducing confidence in overall assessment.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data, suspected fake reviews, and a significant disconnect between older positive reviews and recent pricing complaints. The pricing dimension is particularly unreliable given only 2 mentions, but both are explicitly damaging. Recommend requesting recent customer references before engaging this contractor.

The contractor receives broadly positive feedback on professionalism, with multiple reviewers citing punctuality, courtesy, shoe covers, communication, and willingness to explain work — however, two duplicate negative reviews describe a tech who spoke over the customer, ignored a callback request, and left a mess, which meaningfully drags the professionalism score down. Pricing is a concern: one reviewer noted the job cost significantly more than the Angi-listed estimate with no itemized breakdown provided, and another flagged the price as seemingly expensive, yielding a below-average pricing score. Project completion is generally positive — jobs were finished, a follow-up visit was honored, and technicians confirmed work before leaving — but the negative review documents a new leak caused during the job and a warranty discrepancy, reducing confidence in this dimension. Experience scores moderately well based on specific praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the bent lever incident and warranty confusion introduce doubt. Responsiveness is a notable recurring weakness, with three separate reviews (spanning multiple years) citing unanswered calls and unreturned voicemails.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 15 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates submitted on the same date with the same text and rating. This strongly suggests platform data duplication or potential review manipulation. Duplicate reviews were counted as single mentions to avoid score inflation.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAIN ONLY 'N' AS TEXT with a 5-star rating and the same date (2024-07-24). These are almost certainly placeholder or bot-generated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY WARNING: Several negative reviews regarding phone responsiveness date from 2011, 2017, and 2018 — well outside the 12-month recency window. However, a 2018 review also cites the same voicemail issue, suggesting it may be a persistent structural problem rather than a historical anomaly.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Three independent reviews across different years (2011, 2017, 2018) explicitly cite failure to answer calls or return voicemails. This is a consistent operational weakness that may still be relevant.
• TWO UNDATED REVIEWS were included in qualitative analysis but given reduced weight due to absence of date context.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW DUPLICATION: The detailed 0.5-star review about the hot water heater overcharge, bent lever, and warranty issue appears twice verbatim. It was counted as a single incident but the severity of the complaint — overcharging vs. listed price, causing a new leak, ignoring callback preferences, and a warranty discrepancy — is treated as a significant data point.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of usable unique reviews is reasonable, professionalism and project completion have sufficient mentions for HIGH confidence, but pervasive duplicate entries inflate apparent review count, the pricing dimension rests on only three unique mentions, and a pattern of responsiveness failures across multiple years introduces unresolved concern about operational consistency.