Find Nearby Plumbers In Brooklyn Park, Minnesota

Thelen Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior across multiple reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented. However, the score is significantly impacted by serious project completion failures: two detailed 1-star reviews from January 2023 describe unresolved drywall damage with refusal to rectify, directly contradicting the company's otherwise positive track record. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable. The stark contrast between recent negative completion issues and older positive reviews raises concerns about consistency or potential service degradation.

• CRITICAL: Two recent 1-star reviews (Jan 2023) describe identical core complaint—drywall damage with refusal to fix—suggesting either a systemic problem or legitimate pattern of incomplete work. These are detailed, specific complaints with no generic language.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2020 (3-4 years old). The two most recent reviews (Jan 2023) are severely negative. This temporal pattern suggests possible service quality decline.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from June 3, 2019 use similar generic phrasing ('It was perfect/great/awesome,' 'clean,' 'polite,' 'thorough') with minimal specificity. However, these are not identical enough to definitively flag as fake, and some contain specific details (Nick's name, HVAC/faucet work). Treat with caution but not conclusive.
• CONTRADICTION: The company's strong professionalism and responsiveness scores conflict sharply with the refusal to address damage in recent complaints. This inconsistency warrants skepticism about overall reliability.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW confidence due to the severe contradiction between older positive reviews and recent critical failures regarding project completion and accountability. The January 2023 complaints are specific and detailed enough to warrant serious consideration, and the age of positive reviews limits their relevance. Potential customers should request references from recent projects and clarify warranty/damage responsibility policies before engaging.

Boe Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with many reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, friendliness, and technical knowledge across a long review history. However, pricing is a notable weak point — multiple reviewers explicitly called out high or unfair charges, including one reviewer who felt significantly overcharged ($500 for a 30-minute job) and another who noted prices were 'kind of high,' dragging the pricing dimension down considerably. Project completion is middling: most jobs were finished satisfactorily, but one significant review described unpaid work left incomplete (dishwasher toe kick, water heater shut-off), payment demanded before job was verified done, and subsequent failure to return calls — a serious flag. The WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in communication and skill but meaningful, documented concerns around pricing transparency and follow-through on incomplete work.

• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• One review contains only a period ('.') with no usable content — excluded from scoring.
• One review (2017-12-09) describes a serious project completion failure: work left unfinished after payment was collected, and the contractor stopped returning calls. This is a significant red flag for reliability.
• One review (2019-02-16) explicitly alleges gross overcharging — $500 for a sub-30-minute repair — and a competing plumber completed similar work for $200. This materially lowers the pricing score.
• The vast majority of reviews are more than 3 years old, with most dating from 2010–2020 and several from 2002–2005. Only one review is from 2020 or later. Recency is very poor — this score may not reflect current business performance.
• Several older reviews (2002–2005) are written in all-caps, which is consistent with early review platform formatting rather than fake review patterns, but they carry reduced weight due to age.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, but several reviews are vague and generic (e.g., 'It was just phenomenal.', 'I was very pleased with the work.'). These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high volume of reviews but severely outdated recency — most reviews are 4–20+ years old — combined with documented concerns about overcharging and at least one credible account of abandoned work and non-responsiveness after payment.

Jerry from Baker Brothers consistently receives strong marks for professionalism — all four reviews mention his courteous demeanor, punctuality, and respectful behavior such as wearing shoe covers. Project completion and experience scores are solid, with multiple reviewers noting thorough, quality work delivered on time or ahead of schedule. However, pricing is a notable concern: one reviewer explicitly described the rate as over $300 per hour and called it a shock, which significantly drags down the pricing dimension. All reviews are from 2017–2018, meaning no data exists from the past several years, which limits confidence in how current these assessments are.

• All 4 reviews are dated between 2017 and 2018 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews. WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One explicit pricing complaint citing over $300/hour — this is a meaningful signal given the small review pool and should be weighted seriously.
• Three of four reviews are 5-star with generally positive language. While not conclusively fake, the small sample and uniformly high ratings warrant mild caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 5 years old, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment that requires more recent and numerous reviews before it can be fully trusted.

Pro Master Plumbing receives strong praise from repeat customers who highlight Jim's reliability, honesty, technical skill, and personable manner across multiple projects. Pricing is noted positively in two recent reviews and one older review mentions a transparent hourly rate of $150, suggesting fair and open pricing practices. However, a 1-star review from 2020 describes a serious communication and follow-through failure — a prospective customer was left waiting over a month with no callback after initial contact, which meaningfully drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. The positive reviews span from 2017 to 2024, with the two most recent (late 2024) being the most credible and relevant under recency weighting.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• One review is from 2017 and one is from 2020; only two reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024). Older reviews are given reduced weight.
• The 1-star review (2020) describes a complete failure to follow up with a prospective customer, indicating a potential pattern of poor responsiveness to new clients versus established repeat customers.
• The two 5-star reviews from October 2024 are both from apparent repeat customers, which may reflect a selection bias — satisfied long-term clients are more likely to review than dissatisfied or one-time customers.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally suggests a competent and trusted contractor for repeat customers, but the small sample and one significant negative experience prevent a confident overall assessment.

Adrian receives strong praise from most reviewers for responsiveness, punctuality, and professionalism, with multiple customers highlighting his ability to handle urgent situations quickly and communicate clearly. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and transparent, with one reviewer specifically noting he honored his estimate and another praising him for recommending repair over replacement. However, a significant negative review from 2019 describes a failed water heater repair across multiple trips, a $400 charge with no resolution, no receipt provided, and entering the home without knocking — all serious professionalism and project completion failures that meaningfully drag down the scores. Project completion confidence is tempered by this unresolved job complaint. The review base is very small (5 reviews) and spans 2018–2023, limiting the reliability of any conclusions drawn.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about consistent contractor behavior.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (April 2023) falls within a recent window. The majority date from 2018–2020, reducing recency relevance.
• The 1-star review (July 2019) describes a serious pattern of failures: multiple failed service trips, no receipt issued, and entering the home without knocking. This is a meaningful data point that cannot be dismissed despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.
• The four 5-star reviews contain some generic praise language, but most include specific details (water heater brand, timeframes, pricing behavior) that reduce fake review suspicion. No strong fake review pattern detected, but the small sample warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning multiple years and should be treated as a preliminary signal only — a larger and more recent review set would be required to assess this contractor with meaningful confidence.

Mike's Custom Mechanical presents a deeply split profile across its review history. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly positive, praising individual technicians like Larry, Shane, Carter, and Tyler for professionalism, punctuality, and technical knowledge. However, a substantial body of older reviews — particularly from 2014–2017 — documents a severe and recurring pattern of complete communication failure: customers repeatedly unable to reach the company, no-shows, unreturned calls and emails, and refunds sought through Angie's List. Pricing is a notable weak point across all eras, with multiple reviewers citing charges of $1,000+ for under an hour of labor, undisclosed service fees, quotes that were later dishonored, and at least one case where a competitor completed the same work for $80 versus Mike's quoted $1,500. Project completion is also significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing unfinished work, failed repairs requiring other contractors to fix, and in two serious cases, safety concerns involving furnaces left in dangerous states. The high volume of positive recent reviews does suggest meaningful improvement over time, but the historical record is too substantial to ignore.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR COORDINATED REVIEWS: Approximately 12–15 reviews dated 2025-04-10 all praise a single technician named 'Larry' using nearly identical structure (short, generic, first-name only praise with minimal specifics). Phrases like 'Larry was awesome,' 'Larry was amazing,' 'Larry was very knowledgeable and helpful,' and 'Larry is very personable and knows his stuff!' appear in rapid succession with the same date. This pattern is consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews and has been treated with reduced individual weight.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are clustered in 2024–2025, while the majority of negative reviews span 2014–2020. This may reflect genuine business improvement, but the volume and severity of older complaints — including safety incidents, abandoned work, and billing disputes — cannot be dismissed.
• SAFETY INCIDENTS NOTED: At least two reviews describe technicians leaving furnaces in dangerous or non-functional states. One reviewer states a furnace emitted a fireball after a Mike's technician removed components. Another describes a boiler leaking carbon monoxide that Mike's failed to diagnose over five visits across a full year. These are serious liability flags.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND CROSS-ERA: Multiple independent reviewers across different years cite charges of $300–$375/hour equivalent, undisclosed trip fees, quotes that were not honored, and pressure tactics around upselling. This is not isolated to one technician or time period.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN (2014–2017): A large cluster of 1-star reviews from this period describe the exact same issue — no response to calls, emails, or voicemails, no-shows, and customers forced to seek Angie's List refunds. This suggests a systemic operational failure during that period.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• REVIEW DATE CLUSTERING: Multiple reviews share identical dates (e.g., 2025-06-02, 2025-04-10, 2025-06-07), which may indicate batch solicitation of reviews following service visits, further supporting the fake/incentivized review flag.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously: the score reflects a business with a genuinely troubled historical record that appears to have improved significantly in recent years, and the presence of likely coordinated positive reviews inflates the recent signal — prospective customers should weight the substantive negative reviews, particularly those involving pricing disputes, incomplete work, and safety concerns, heavily in their decision-making.