Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakeville, Minnesota

Lakeville Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions, with particularly notable strength in professionalism (89.5). The contractor (Jeff) is consistently praised for punctuality, responsiveness, courteous demeanor, and clear communication across 48 reviews. Pricing is fair and transparent with 22 explicit mentions of reasonable rates and accurate quotes. Project completion is solid (85.5) with most jobs finished as promised, though three older reviews (2004-2007) document communication failures and scheduling issues that slightly lower this score. Technical expertise is evident (88.0) with customers noting quality workmanship and problem-solving ability. The overwhelmingly positive rating (54 of 56 reviews are 5-star) reflects a well-established, reliable service provider.

• Review dataset is heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings (54 of 56 reviews). While this may reflect genuine quality, the extreme uniformity warrants noting.
• Three negative reviews (ratings 1.0) from 2004-2007 document serious communication failures: failure to return calls, missed appointments, and lack of follow-through. These are older but represent material service failures.
• All reviews are from 2003-2012 (oldest dataset is 20+ years old). No reviews from past 12 months means recency cannot be assessed. Current service quality is unknown.
• Two 4-star reviews (2008-03-10, 2008-05-19) mention minor property damage (wall banging, drywall damage) not fully compensated, suggesting occasional lapses in care during installation work.
• One review (2005-06-01) documents smudging of freshly painted walls and slower-than-desired scheduling on multi-visit jobs, indicating occasional attention-to-detail issues on complex projects.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable based on 56 reviews with consistent data across all dimensions and HIGH confidence across the board; however, the complete absence of recent reviews (all data is 12+ years old) means this score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality. The three documented communication failures in the 2004-2007 period suggest the contractor has had reliability issues in the past, though the overwhelming majority of reviews are positive.

Mainline Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength with 98 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness—particularly praised for same-day service and emergency availability. Project completion is consistently reliable with 89 mentions showing jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across 76 mentions, with customers noting knowledgeable technicians who diagnose problems accurately and explain work clearly. Pricing is the relative weak point with 32 mentions; while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, a notable subset explicitly wished prices were lower or felt charged unfairly for quick jobs. A small number of older reviews (2014–2018) document serious failures in diagnosis and follow-up communication, though recent reviews (2025) show consistent excellence.

• Pricing dimension has notably fewer mentions (32) than other dimensions, suggesting price concerns are less frequently discussed but may be underrepresented in the score.
• Five reviews (ratings 1–2 stars) document significant service failures: misdiagnosis of frozen pipes vs. well pump failure (2018), failure to follow up on scheduled appointments (2021), poor communication after initial assessment (2021), inability to resolve issue after months of work (2016), and owner rudeness (2016). These are isolated but serious.
• One review (2024-06-09, 2-star) describes a disabled senior customer allegedly being 'thrown under the bus' due to fear of confrontation with another contractor—a serious allegation of abandonment.
• Three blank/minimal reviews (5-star, no text) contribute to score but provide no substantive data.
• Recency bias noted: vast majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 (recent 12 months), with older reviews (2013–2018) showing more variability in quality. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star).
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific names, detailed scenarios, and varied language. Consistency appears genuine rather than fabricated.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable for recent service expectations (2024–2025), supported by 176 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions. However, the score masks a small but documented history of serious failures in diagnosis and communication (2014–2021), suggesting caution for complex diagnostic work. Pricing remains a legitimate concern for cost-sensitive customers despite overall fairness claims. The company's recent track record is excellent, but past failures warrant acknowledgment.

Aqueduct Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, communication, transparency, and courteous demeanor. Pricing is generally praised as fair or below competing quotes, with multiple reviewers noting the final bill came in under estimate or significantly below other companies; however, two negative reviews (1-star 'bait and switch' and 1-star 'price too high') introduce a modest downward pull on the pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with numerous reviewers describing jobs finished same-day, follow-through on callbacks, and clean workmanship, though one 3-star review flags a pattern of unresponsiveness to repeat customers in later years. Experience scores are strong, with reviewers citing technical knowledge, effective problem-solving, and high-quality workmanship across a wide variety of plumbing tasks.

• 13 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews share the exact date of 2021-06-10 and 2022-06-10, which may indicate batch-imported or backdated reviews rather than organically submitted ones. Confidence is not reduced significantly given the volume of detailed reviews, but this pattern warrants mild caution.
• One review (2021-06-10, 1-star) states only 'Bait and switch' with no elaboration. This is a serious allegation but lacks detail to fully evaluate. It has been factored into scoring conservatively.
• One review (2021-06-10, 1-star) states only 'Asked price too high with the works being done.' This has been factored into the pricing score.
• One review (2022-07-27, 3-star) explicitly flags that the business became unresponsive to repeat customers after shifting focus to commercial work. This is a credible and specific concern about responsiveness and professionalism.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2021 and earlier). Only a handful of reviews are from 2023–2024. Recency of data is limited and the business's current service quality may differ from what is reflected in the bulk of reviews.
• One review references 'Mark' rather than 'David' and is dated 2014, suggesting either a different technician or a very old review. This review was included but given reduced weight due to age and ambiguity.
• A duplicate review appears to have been submitted twice (hot water tank leak, same text, dates 2021-06-10 and 2021-02-10). Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable detail and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with awareness that the bulk of evidence is more than 12 months old, a small number of negative reviews raise unresolved concerns about pricing transparency and responsiveness, and a clustering of same-date reviews suggests possible batch importing of historical data.

Professionalism is the most frequently praised dimension across this large review set, with dozens of customers explicitly citing courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name (Willie, Parker, Rafael, Kevin, Michael, Humberto, Jim, Russ, and others). Project completion scores well overall — the majority of reviewers confirm jobs were finished same-day or within the scheduled visit — but is tempered by one credible complaint of a job declared fixed that was not, a BBB complaint filed, and one no-show/no-call incident. Experience is consistently praised, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnosis, problem-solving in difficult conditions, and quality workmanship. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing reasonable or affordable, there are multiple credible negative reviews citing charges of $500–$800 for relatively minor repairs, lack of price transparency, and billing for time not worked — these are specific, detailed complaints that meaningfully drag the pricing score down.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A significant number of reviews (approximately 35+) contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating labeled 'unknown' or blank. These provide zero usable data and inflate the raw star average without contributing evidence. They were excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Very trustworthy and reliable.', 'Very professional and curtious', 'Great service & very professional manner.') with no specifics. While not conclusive, the volume of such reviews warrants caution.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names — 'Preferred Plumbing', 'My Plumber / MyPlumber Inc.', and possibly others. Technician names span a very wide range (Willie, Parker, Rafael Sr/Jr, Kevin, Humberto, Ryan, Dennis, Tom, Michael, Jim, Russ, Don, Barry, Freddie, Collin, Chaz, Fred Garcia, etc.), suggesting this may be an aggregated profile across multiple companies or franchises. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Oct 2024) contains an extremely serious allegation — sexual harassment, refusal to leave the premises, attempted theft, and property damage. This review is highly specific in detail and geography. If credible, it represents a significant safety concern. It was factored into professionalism and project completion scoring.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Jul 2023) alleges the company lied about completing a repair, took payment, refused to refund, and did not respond to a BBB complaint. This is a credible, specific complaint that directly impacts project completion scoring.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: Multiple pricing complaints are specific and credible — $500 charged for a running toilet with alleged time inflation (Oct 2024), $800 for a faucet/valve repair with no price breakdown (Sep 2021), $175 for aerator cleaning plus $49 service call for an unresolved issue (May 2023), and a former employee review alleging the company does 'shitty work' and takes shortcuts (Mar 2019). These are not vague complaints and were weighted accordingly.
• NEGATIVE FLAG: One 1-star review (Aug 2015) describes a no-show with no proactive communication — the customer had to call to get an update and was still stood up. This negatively impacts professionalism scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of reviews (roughly 60+) are older than 5 years, with some dating back to 2003–2012. More recent reviews (2024–2025) are given higher weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) are particularly significant as they reflect current business practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews with no date were treated as lower weight due to inability to assess recency.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (155 total, ~120 with usable text) spanning over 20 years, providing HIGH statistical confidence in the directional scores, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by: the likely aggregation of multiple distinct business entities under one profile, a non-trivial cluster of credible negative reviews on pricing and project completion, a serious unverified harassment allegation, and a large number of blank or content-free 5-star submissions that suggest possible review padding.

Across the five reviews with usable content, this contractor consistently received praise for punctuality, professionalism, and responsiveness, driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion was well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs were finished thoroughly, including complex work such as concrete breakup, soaking tub installation, and water heater setup. Experience scores were bolstered by specific mentions of technical competence, problem-solving on the fly, and quality workmanship. Pricing received only one explicit mention, but it was notably positive — the contractor absorbed unexpected additional labor costs without charging the customer more, which is a strong signal of integrity. All reviews are older than 9 years, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• Two reviews have 'unknown' text and provide no usable data — they were excluded from scoring.
• ALL reviews are dated between 2011 and 2015 — none are within the past 12 months or even the past several years. This score may not reflect current performance.
• With only 5 usable reviews and all being 5-star ratings, there is a risk of selection bias, though the reviews contain specific details that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Small sample size (5 usable reviews) means this score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small usable review sample and the fact that all reviews are over 9 years old, making it impossible to assess the contractor's current quality of work.

All four reviews are positive and consistently praise professionalism, friendliness, and communication, supporting a strong professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly called fair, competitive, and accurate across three reviews, lending moderate confidence to that dimension. Project completion is supported by references to timely, accurate, and complete work across three reviews. Experience is evidenced by mentions of knowledgeability, capability, and quality workmanship in three reviews. However, the total review count is very low (only 4 reviews), and three of the four are more than five years old, significantly limiting the reliability of this score.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Three of four reviews are older than 5 years (2010, 2018, 2018), with only one review from the past 12 months relative to 2020. Recency is a significant concern — business practices may have changed.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While not conclusively fake, the lack of any critical detail or nuance warrants caution.
• Review from 2010 is over a decade old and was given minimal weight in scoring.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, the majority of which are significantly outdated, and should be considered low-reliability until a larger and more recent body of reviews is available.