Find Nearby Plumbers In Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Jason (Vesi Works) demonstrates consistently strong performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is exceptionally well-documented with 35 mentions emphasizing punctuality, responsiveness, courtesy, and clear communication. Project completion is highly reliable with 28 mentions confirming fast turnaround, thorough work, and follow-through on callbacks. Experience is well-supported with 15 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving ability. Pricing receives solid marks (82.0) based on 12 mentions, though one reviewer noted surprise at a hidden Home Advisor fee, slightly tempering the score. The contractor's ability to accommodate urgent requests and deliver competitive pricing while maintaining quality is a consistent strength.

• One duplicate review detected (May 24, 2021 - identical text appears twice), reducing unique data points slightly but not affecting scoring validity
• Review from April 6, 2023 explicitly states 'cost was a bit high for the time spent' despite 5-star rating, suggesting some price sensitivity; this is appropriately reflected in the moderate pricing score
• Most reviews cluster between 2021-2023; only 2 reviews from 2023 and 1 from 2022 are recent (past 12 months from analysis date), indicating older review base
• Several reviews are extremely brief ('Done fast', 'Great', 'A+', 'timely') with minimal detail, though they do not appear to be fabricated—they align with longer, detailed reviews

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable, supported by 45 substantive reviews with strong consensus across all dimensions. The HIGH overall confidence is justified by robust mention counts (28-35 for primary dimensions) and consistent positive feedback with specific, credible details. However, note that most reviews predate 2023, so very recent performance cannot be fully assessed.

This contractor demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and reliable project completion. Professionalism is the strongest dimension (85.2), with 98 mentions highlighting punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and courteous behavior. Project completion scores well (81.8) across 87 mentions, though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. Experience is solid (84.1) with 56 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Pricing is the weakest dimension (78.5) with legitimate concerns about Saturday emergency rates, hidden hourly charges, and occasional overcharging, though many reviews praise fair pricing. The contractor shows reliability but has notable service consistency issues and pricing transparency problems that prevent a higher score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Approximately 120 of 240 reviews are exact or near-exact duplicates (same text, same date, consecutive entries). This artificially inflates mention counts and confidence levels. Actual unique review count is approximately 120, which would lower overall confidence.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple sets of identical reviews with identical ratings and dates suggest systematic duplication rather than organic customer feedback. This is a significant data quality issue.
• SERIOUS SERVICE FAILURES: Two detailed 0.5-star reviews (2021-06-22) describe severe professionalism breakdowns including no-shows, combative/vulgar behavior, and failure to honor commitments on water heater installation. One review (2022-03-30) describes owner refusing service due to weather and missing rescheduled appointment.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite hidden charges (extra hourly fees not disclosed upfront, 2023-02-09), overcharging on second visits (2019-08-14), and extremely high Saturday emergency rates ($600 for clog removal, 2024-02-18). These are legitimate concerns about pricing practices.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review from 2022-07-12 indicates job was not completed—drain remained clogged and slow after service, with technician unable to access problem area.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Review from 2021-03-02 notes toilet reinstallation issues (tank leak, wax residue mess) requiring customer follow-up repairs, suggesting inconsistent workmanship quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2019-2021 (older than 1 year). Only ~15% of reviews are from 2024 or late 2023, limiting ability to assess current service quality.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR CONCERNS: Multiple reviews specifically mention negative interactions with owner 'Ken' or 'Ken Metz' regarding scheduling, follow-through, and communication, suggesting management-level issues separate from technician performance.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION due to systematic duplicate reviews inflating the dataset and confidence metrics. The actual unique review count is approximately 120, not 240, which would reduce overall confidence from HIGH to MODERATE. Additionally, serious service failures, pricing transparency issues, and owner behavior problems documented in detailed negative reviews suggest the contractor has significant operational inconsistencies that are not fully captured by the aggregate score. The score reflects strong technician-level performance (particularly Matt) but masks concerning management and pricing practices.

Plumbing Masters has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and technical competence. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range — raise serious concerns about pricing transparency, overcharging, no-shows, incomplete work, and rude staff behavior, which significantly temper the otherwise strong scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about unexplained charges, inflated quotes, non-itemized invoices, and pressure tactics, pulling that score well below the others. Project completion is generally strong but is undermined by several reviews describing unfinished work, callbacks not honored, and jobs left in worse condition than found. The experience dimension scores well overall, with many reviewers citing knowledgeable and skilled technicians, though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnoses and poor workmanship.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., the Levi garbage disposal review, the Manuel Luna review, the Miguel technician review, the 'hands down awesome' slow drain review, and the Casey professional review each appear twice within 2-3 days). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding. Confidence has been maintained at HIGH due to overall volume but scores have been kept conservative.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in bulk inflates the star average artificially.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CREDIBLE AND RECURRING: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe non-itemized invoices, charges far exceeding market rates (e.g., $466 for a cartridge replacement, $495 for a toilet install, $18,000-$35,000 for bathroom work, $300 for lighting a pilot light), and bait-and-switch advertising (e.g., $53 drain clean ad vs. $409 quote). These are not isolated incidents.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer (February 2023) explicitly states they were called by Plumbing Masters and threatened with cancellation of service if they did not change their 1-star review. This is a serious integrity flag and suggests some positive reviews may have been coerced or incentivized.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians who never arrived, no callbacks, and wasted full days waiting. This is a recurring operational issue not offset by the volume of positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews with substantive text are from 2022-2025, which is appropriate for weighting. Reviews from 2003-2016 are present but given reduced weight. The duplicate cluster in June 2025 is suspicious and may represent a coordinated review push.
• WORKER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least two reviews describe technicians or crews behaving rudely, using profanity toward customers, playing loud music, disappearing for hours, and being dismissive — particularly toward women and elderly customers. These are serious professionalism concerns.

This WW Score of 74.2 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, an explicit allegation of review coercion, recurring pricing complaints across many years, and multiple credible no-show and incomplete-work reports — the true performance level is likely somewhat lower than the score suggests for price-sensitive or vulnerable customers.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Bonfe's reviews are overwhelmingly dominated by pricing complaints, which represent the single most consistent and severe theme across the entire review set. Customers repeatedly describe markups of 500–1000%+ on parts and labor, with numerous examples of quotes that were 3–10x what competitors ultimately charged. Professionalism scores are mixed: individual technicians are frequently described as friendly and polite, but the company-level behavior — including no-shows, last-minute cancellations, high-pressure sales tactics, and a customer service rep hanging up on a client — drags the score down significantly. Project completion is also problematic, with multiple accounts of technicians arriving without proper equipment, failing to diagnose problems correctly, and in one case leaving a unit in worse condition than they found it. Experience scores reflect a pattern of misdiagnosis and upselling unnecessary replacements, though a handful of reviews do describe competent and knowledgeable technicians.

• Several reviews contain only a period ('.') or single generic phrases ('It went well.', 'unknown', 'We would use them again.') with no substantive content — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• The blank/dot reviews are all 5-star ratings, which creates a suspicious pattern of content-free positive ratings potentially inflating the star average without providing verifiable evidence of quality.
• One review (2022-05-25) appears to be a completely unrelated HOA/board dispute accidentally posted to this contractor's profile and was excluded from scoring.
• Recency note: The majority of the most detailed and negative reviews are from 2022–2024, suggesting the pricing and service quality issues are current and ongoing, not historical anomalies.
• A recurring pattern of technicians recommending full system replacements (AC, furnace, water heater) at extreme markups — only for competitors to resolve the same issues for a fraction of the cost — suggests a systemic upselling practice rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviewers independently describe the same tactic: using the smallest available blade for drain cleaning so roots regrow faster, requiring repeat service calls. This is a serious integrity flag.

This WW Score is based on 36 reviews with substantive content and carries HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; the score of 28.1 should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's performance, with pricing being the dominant driver of the low result.

The single available review is severely negative, describing a boiler replacement exceeding $25,000 that never functioned properly after installation. The reviewer reports being charged repeatedly for service calls simply to restart the heat, indicating a fundamental failure in project completion and workmanship. No guarantee was offered on the work, raising serious concerns about pricing transparency and accountability. All four dimensions are impacted negatively by this review, though the extremely limited data set (one review) means no reliable WW Score can be calculated. This review is recent (May 2023) and carries full recency weight.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Severe complaint regarding a $25,000+ boiler replacement that reportedly never worked correctly — this is a significant financial and workmanship red flag.
• Reviewer explicitly states no guarantee was provided on services, suggesting a lack of accountability or warranty policy.
• Repeated service call charges to fix the same issue suggest either poor initial installation quality or a predatory billing practice.
• With only one review, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as definitive assessments.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and cannot be considered reliable or representative — a minimum of 3 reviews is required for a valid WW Score, and the extreme negativity of the sole review should be interpreted with caution until more data is available.