Find Nearby Plumbers In Minneapolis, Minnesota

Norblom Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable plumbers who communicate clearly, arrive on time, and clean up after themselves. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished promptly and correctly the first time, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite incomplete work, refusal to return to fix issues, and poor follow-through on callbacks or permits. The pricing dimension is the most contested: while many reviewers describe fair, competitive, or even below-estimate billing, a significant and recurring thread of complaints highlights extreme parts markups, billing surprises beyond quoted amounts, and charges that felt disproportionate to the work performed — pulling this score down considerably. The overall picture is of a capable, generally professional company with a real and documented pricing transparency problem that prospective customers should be aware of.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('We called about getting a new water heater after the shock of an outrageously cold shower...') were submitted on 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30 with the same 5-star rating. These appear to be the same review posted twice and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text about a leaking 30-year-old water heater and Michael Kostecky appear on 2024-08-10 and 2024-07-11. These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text about being charged $475+ for an estimate and calling manager Mike appear on 2021-06-07 and 2021-05-28. Counted only once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text about the hose bib replacement and parts cannon totaling over $600 appear on 2024-06-06 and 2023-11-10. Counted only once.
• PRICING CONCERN — RECURRING PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years (2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025) specifically cite extreme parts markups (e.g., $82 charged for $12-20 of copper tubing, $303 for $70 of materials), billing amounts significantly above quoted estimates, and manager defensiveness when billing is questioned. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN — RECURRING PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite refusal to return to fix issues without additional charges, failure to follow up after complaints, and in one case a plumber who denied breaking a pipe and argued with the customer. This pattern across multiple reviewers and years reduces confidence in project completion scores for complex or multi-visit jobs.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 19 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, though their ratings were noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2009 to 2025. Reviews from 2020 onward were given greater weight. The pricing complaints and accountability issues appear in both older and recent reviews, suggesting these are ongoing rather than historical concerns.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: A subset of 5-star reviews (particularly those clustered on 2024-06-06, 2023-06-07, and 2021-06-07) are very brief and generic with no specific details (e.g., 'Highly recommend this place. Great all around experience from start to finish.'). While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution. These were included but weighted conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review corpus spanning 16 years and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy; however, prospective customers should treat the pricing dimension score with particular scrutiny given the volume, specificity, and consistency of billing-related complaints across independent reviewers.

Metro Heating and Cooling earns strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians as friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative — standout techs like Andrew, Brian, Lucy, Tim, and others are repeatedly named positively. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting Metro beat other bids and avoided upselling, though a handful of reviews flagged costs as higher than expected or cited a controversial $129 estimate fee. Project completion is the most mixed dimension: while most jobs are described as completed efficiently and on time, there are notable negative reviews citing abandoned or repeatedly failed work, warranty non-response, missed appointments, and a furnace that failed within a week of installation. Experience scores moderately high overall, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by several serious complaints about wrong units being installed, misdiagnosis, and technicians lacking competency on specialized systems like heat pumps and mod-con boilers.

• 18 reviews contain no text at all (blank, 'unknown', 'NA', single punctuation marks, or 'Absolutely perfect' with no detail) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews from June 2025 are very short and generic (e.g., 'Andrew was super helpful!', 'Andrew was great and the service was informative', 'Very prompt and polite') with no specifics — possible padding or low-effort reviews, though not conclusively fake.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the detailed boiler review dated 2018-01-25 appears twice verbatim) — one was excluded from the count to avoid double-weighting.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the AC relocation complaint dated 2013-09-03 appears twice verbatim) — one was excluded from the count to avoid double-weighting.
• One review (1-star, 2025-03-11) alleges a technician called animal control on the customer's dog — this is a serious conduct allegation that could not be verified but is noted as a significant professionalism flag.
• One review (1-star, 2015-10-13) describes a dangerous installation error involving a gas heater vented incorrectly, which the reviewer states could have been fatal — this is a serious safety and competency flag.
• One review (1-star, 2014-02-16) describes a heat pump installation with repeated failures across six service calls, no permit obtained, and technicians admitting they were not experts in heat pumps — significant project completion and experience concern.
• One review (1-star, 2013-09-03) describes an AC relocation that failed city inspection, required four additional service calls, and involved unprofessional after-hours communication — significant project completion flag.
• One review (1-star, 2022-11-26) alleges a technician recommended a full water heater replacement when only a $13 thermocouple was needed — potential upselling/misdiagnosis flag.
• One review (1-star, 2022-03-24) states the company will not honor warranties and does not return calls — warranty non-compliance flag.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 12 months (many dating back to 2011–2022). Recency weighting was applied, giving greater interpretive weight to 2024–2025 reviews, which are predominantly positive.
• The cluster of very short 5-star reviews in early June 2025 (multiple reviews on the same date with minimal detail) slightly reduces confidence in the most recent review cohort.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, 107 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence overall, but consumers should weigh the serious negative reviews carefully — particularly those involving installation failures, warranty disputes, and safety concerns — as these represent meaningful risks that the high volume of positive reviews can obscure.

Boevaag Plumbing has a strong overall track record built on decades of reviews, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and same-day or next-day availability. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting lower costs than competitors, though a handful of complaints about unexpected charges and unclear coupon terms temper this dimension. Project completion is largely positive, with jobs described as finished cleanly and efficiently, but there are notable negative outliers including a flooded basement from a faulty install, an unresolved toilet leak requiring a second visit, and a missed appointment with no callback for 11 days. Professionalism scores are dragged down by a recurring pattern of rude or dismissive phone interactions reported across multiple independent reviews spanning 2015 to 2025, suggesting a persistent customer service issue at the office level. The field technicians are consistently praised, but the front-office communication weakness is a meaningful and credible concern that prevents a higher overall score.

• 43 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', or blank) and were excluded from dimension scoring. These reviews all carry 5-star ratings and no content, which is a pattern consistent with placeholder or imported reviews. This inflates the visible star average without contributing verifiable evidence.
• Multiple independent reviews across different years (2015, 2017, 2018, 2025) describe rude, dismissive, or unprofessional phone interactions with what appears to be the same owner or office contact. This is a credible and recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• Two reviews describe serious workmanship failures: one involving a flooded basement from an incorrectly installed toilet flange (2019) with no insurance resolution, and another involving a flooded basement after a water heater install (2014). These are high-severity incidents that weigh against the project completion score.
• One review (2018) describes a missed appointment with no callback for 11 days after the customer took a day off work. This is a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• A significant portion of detailed reviews are older than 12 months (pre-June 2024), with the most recent 12 months containing approximately 17 reviews with usable content. Recency weighting was applied; recent reviews are generally positive but the negative phone-interaction pattern persists into 2025.
• No evidence of coordinated fake positive reviews among the substantive reviews — specific names, job types, and details vary sufficiently. The 'unknown' placeholder reviews are a data quality concern but not necessarily fraudulent in origin.

This WW Score is based on a large review set spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the recurring office-level rudeness complaints, two serious workmanship failure incidents, and a large volume of content-free placeholder reviews that cannot be scored but artificially elevate the visible star rating.

Apple Valley Plumbing (Greg) earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, friendliness, and same-day or next-day availability across dozens of reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism scores are tempered by five negative reviews citing rude phone interactions, a failure to return calls, and one instance of refusing to honor a warranty callback — meaningful red flags that prevent a top-tier score. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting Greg is cheaper than larger competitors, but two reviews flag the labor rates as high for the time spent, keeping this dimension conservative. Project completion is strong, with the vast majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly and promptly, though the one warranty non-response review is a notable exception that weighs against a perfect score. Experience is well-supported, with reviewers including a retired plumber vouching for Greg's skill, problem-solving ability, and thoroughness.

• 5 blank or near-blank reviews (no text, only a star rating) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (2024-08-13, 1-star) explicitly states Greg refused to return to service a water heater he installed under warranty — a serious project completion and professionalism concern.
• Multiple 1-star reviews cite poor phone communication: hanging up on a customer, refusing to quote, and failing to return calls twice — suggesting a pattern of inconsistent customer service at the intake stage.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 (six reviews on the same date) warrants mild scrutiny for potential review clustering, though the review content is varied enough to not strongly suggest fabrication.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (pre-May 2024), with only 4 reviews from the past 12 months. Recent performance data is limited.
• One reviewer (2016-05-24, 4-star) provided a detailed and credible complaint about being charged for 2 hours when work took approximately 1 hour 20 minutes, suggesting occasional lack of pricing transparency.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (52 with usable data) and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with caution given the recurring pattern of negative phone/intake experiences, one unresolved warranty complaint, and the fact that most reviews predate 2024.

H2C demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is reinforced by multiple mentions of friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable staff who avoid high-pressure sales tactics. Pricing is viewed favorably as middle-of-the-pack to reasonable with transparent options and helpful payment plans. Project completion is evidenced by successful installations of boilers, furnaces, AC units, and plumbing work completed efficiently. Experience is validated through technical competence, diagnostic thoroughness (video scope inspections), and problem-solving ability tailored to customer needs.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — this uniformity warrants caution, though reviews contain specific details and vary in content enough to suggest authenticity rather than fabrication
• Review dates span 2012–2018 (6–10 years old); no recent reviews from past 12 months limits ability to assess current service quality
• Small sample size (n=6) means score is based on limited data; confidence should be treated as moderate despite mention counts

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to small sample size, age of reviews, and absence of any negative feedback; while the company appears genuinely competent and professional, the lack of recent data and critical perspectives limits confidence in current performance.

All three reviews explicitly praise McDonough's across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently highlighted through punctuality (Nate arrived before 2pm same-day), communication (technician talked customer through findings), and courteous behavior (cleanup, friendly demeanor). Pricing is strongly endorsed with customers noting costs were significantly lower than competitors' quotes ($6,000–$11,000 vs. McDonough's undisclosed but notably cheaper rate). Project completion is evidenced by thorough work including camera inspection, augering, full pipe inspection, and cleanup. Experience shines through technical problem-solving (identifying root causes that big-name competitors missed) and specialized equipment (camera probe for vent pipes). However, the sample size is small (n=3) and two reviews are older than 3 years, limiting confidence.

• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more recent reviews before making major decisions
• Two of three reviews are from 2020–2021; only one review from 2024 provides current service quality data
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any balanced perspective or minor complaints is atypical and should be noted

This WW Score of 88.2 is based on limited but consistently positive data; it should be treated as a promising indicator rather than a definitive assessment, and updated with additional recent reviews to increase confidence.