Find Nearby Plumbers In Minneapolis, Minnesota

Stewart Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on schedule and callbacks honored. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about rates substantially above market average—often 2-3x competitor pricing. While the company delivers quality work and professional service, the high cost structure creates substantial customer dissatisfaction that materially impacts overall trustworthiness despite strong execution on core plumbing services.

• PRICING PATTERN: 28 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. 15+ reviews cite prices as 'outrageous,' 'too expensive,' or 'double/triple market rate.' This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• PRICE-QUALITY DISCONNECT: Multiple reviews acknowledge good work quality but express strong objection to pricing (e.g., 'great service but too expensive,' 'quality work at unreasonable prices'). This suggests pricing, not competence, drives negative sentiment.
• SERVICE CALL FEES: Multiple complaints about $75-$89 diagnostic/trip fees charged even when customer declines work. Several reviews note competitors offer free estimates.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Several reviews mention aggressive upselling of 'VIP packages' and membership programs, sometimes before addressing the primary issue.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 12 one-star reviews (2024-2015) predominantly cite pricing abuse, poor accountability for failed work, and unprofessional behavior. Notable: one review alleges discrimination based on property location (Frazer); another describes failed repair with refusal to take responsibility.
• FAILED WORK ACCOUNTABILITY: 3 reviews describe incomplete or failed repairs (tub drain gasket glued but leak persisted; faucet soldering damaged internal washer; camera inspection went up vent instead of drain). Company response was poor in at least 2 cases.
• RECENCY BIAS CONSIDERATION: Most recent reviews (2025, late 2024) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2022-2015) contain more critical detail and pricing complaints. This may indicate review selection bias or improved recent performance, but cannot be confirmed.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain minimal detail ('Great crew!', 'Excellent service', 'Highly recommend') with no specifics. While not necessarily fake, they provide limited evidentiary value.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 13 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text. These cannot be analyzed for dimension-specific evidence and suggest possible review platform artifacts.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence (HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension significantly depresses the overall score and reflects genuine customer dissatisfaction documented across 22+ years of reviews. The company delivers quality work and professional service, but pricing practices create substantial trust issues that should weigh heavily in contractor selection decisions. Customers should expect to pay premium rates and should obtain multiple quotes before committing.

DC Annis demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and knowledge. Project completion is generally reliable with same-day service and efficient work noted frequently. However, the company is significantly hampered by a pattern of serious negative incidents: multiple reviews document failure to complete work properly, equipment damage to customer homes, no-shows, billing disputes, and unprofessional behavior (including a court judgment for negligence). Pricing feedback is mixed, with some praising fair rates while others report unexpected charges and upselling. The concentration of negative reviews around service failures and customer care issues creates material risk despite the high volume of positive feedback.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe negative reviews document serious failures including: (1) equipment damage to customer home with court judgment against company for negligence (2013); (2) failure to complete work and refusal of service due to customer complaint (2013); (3) incomplete repairs requiring multiple service calls with double-charging (2018); (4) equipment stuck in drain requiring second technician and unexpected cost tripling (2019); (5) no-show appointment with poor communication and refusal to serve customer (2013); (6) service call charged without resolution, problem recurred 2 hours later (2018); (7) unprofessional behavior including trespassing and disrespect to property owner (2025).
• PATTERN ALERT: Negative reviews span 12 years (2013-2025) suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Multiple complaints about upselling, unexpected charges, and lack of accountability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly positive, the most recent negative review is from March 2025 (trespassing/disrespect incident), indicating ongoing issues.
• CONFIDENCE MODERATION: Despite high mention counts, the severity and consistency of documented failures (especially court judgment, property damage, no-shows) warrant conservative scoring. Positive reviews may reflect selection bias (satisfied customers more likely to review).
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews cite upfront pricing as positive, but several negative reviews document unexpected charges, cost doubling/tripling, and upselling tactics. Pricing score reflects this inconsistency.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence in the data. While the company demonstrates strong technical capability and professionalism in the majority of recent engagements, the documented pattern of serious failures—including court-adjudicated negligence, property damage, billing disputes, and service refusals—represents material risk that cannot be ignored. Customers should proceed with realistic expectations and verify insurance/liability coverage before engaging this company.

McDonough's demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with most recent reviews (2024-2025) praising knowledgeable technicians, courteous service, and rapid response times. However, pricing practices are a significant concern, with multiple recent complaints about undisclosed billing structures (dispatch vs. arrival time), unexpected charges, and disputed invoicing. Project completion shows mixed results: many jobs are completed successfully, but several reviews document incomplete work, failed problem resolution, and customer dissatisfaction with outcomes. The company's responsiveness and staff demeanor are consistently praised, but billing transparency and follow-through on complex jobs remain problematic.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple recent reviews (March 2025) explicitly cite deceptive billing practices where the 2-hour service window begins at dispatch time rather than arrival time, resulting in unexpected charges of $80-$140. This represents a systemic billing practice concern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two detailed 1-star reviews from March 2025 document incomplete work—jetting service that failed to clear the clog and charged $697.20 with no resolution. Customer reported being ignored by management (Dan) when requesting refund or credit.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews from 2023 and 2019 report billing disputes, overtime pressure tactics, and service failures. A 2023 review suggests the company has changed (possibly new ownership) with degraded service quality.
• CREDIT CARD POLICY CONCERN: Multiple reviews mention mandatory credit card on file with unclear dispute resolution process, limiting customer recourse for billing disagreements.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most positive reviews are from 2020-2022 and earlier. Recent reviews (2025, 2023) show a sharp decline in satisfaction, particularly around pricing and project completion.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews contain no text (ratings only: 5.0 and 4.0 from 2023 and 2022), reducing data quality slightly.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 18-28 mentions, the pricing dimension is based on only 15 mentions and reveals a serious systemic issue with billing transparency that directly contradicts the company's stated commitment to fair pricing. The sharp deterioration in recent reviews (2025, 2023) compared to 2020-2022 suggests the company's actual current performance may be significantly lower than the overall score indicates. Customers considering this company should prioritize obtaining detailed written pricing terms and clarification of billing methodology before service.

Spetz Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in project completion (85) and technical experience (88), supported by consistent mentions across reviews. Professionalism scores well at 82, with frequent praise for responsiveness, friendliness, and communication. However, pricing is a significant weakness at 65, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging ($320 for valve cleaning, $750 for 20ft copper run) and lack of transparency. The company shows reliability in scheduling and timeliness but faces credibility issues around fair pricing and warranty practices that temper the otherwise positive reputation.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Three 1-star reviews explicitly cite overcharging and unfair pricing practices. One customer paid $320 for valve cleaning that failed after 4 days; another was quoted $750 for straightforward copper line work. These are specific, detailed complaints suggesting potential systemic pricing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: One 1-star review describes rude behavior and pressure for paid on-site estimates, contradicting the predominantly professional image. Another 1-star review reports no-shows on two consecutive days with rude responses, indicating serious reliability lapses in some cases.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 58% of reviews (14 of 24) lack date information, making it impossible to assess recency trends. Dated reviews span from August 2022 to May 2025, with the most recent negative reviews from June 2024 and undated reviews potentially older. This limits confidence in current service quality.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several undated reviews are extremely brief ('Excellent service', 'Very happy with service', 'Good', 'Thank you!') with minimal detail, which could indicate placeholder or low-effort reviews, though not necessarily fake.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: The stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints about the same company suggests either highly variable service quality depending on technician/situation, or potential selection bias in review submission.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score is supported by substantial mention counts across dimensions, the presence of three detailed 1-star reviews citing specific overcharging incidents, combined with significant missing date data (58% of reviews), suggests the current score may not fully reflect recent service quality or pricing practices. The pricing dimension in particular is underdeveloped (only 5 mentions) and driven by serious complaints that warrant investigation before hiring.

Modern Plumbing and Heating earns strong marks across most dimensions, with consistent praise for communication, punctuality, and technical competence across the majority of reviews. Professionalism is well-documented — multiple reviewers highlight timely arrivals, clear explanations, clean job sites, and courteous attitudes. Experience scores well too, with several reviewers noting skilled diagnostics, thorough workmanship, and problem-solving that a prior contractor had failed to achieve. Project completion is generally strong, with jobs described as fully finished and followed through, but is meaningfully dragged down by one credible 1-star review describing a failed repair, a broken promise of durability, and a complete lack of follow-up or callback — a serious completion and accountability failure. Pricing receives limited but mostly positive mentions, with one reviewer noting a free-of-charge bonus repair and another describing the plumber as 'cost conscious,' though no strong pattern of pricing transparency emerges across the dataset.

• One significant negative review (1-star, 2019) describes a repair that failed within 6 months, the owner refusing to honor a callback, and ignoring repeated messages — this is a direct contradiction to the otherwise positive pattern and must be weighted seriously for project completion and professionalism.
• Several reviews are dated 2017–2018, making them 6–7 years old. Only 2 reviews are from 2021 or later, and only 1 is from the past 12 months (2024). The recency of the data is weak and the business's current quality cannot be reliably inferred from older reviews.
• Some reviews are generic in praise (e.g., 'He is awesome. It was really nice. He came back and checked everything out for me. He was very thorough.') with minimal specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points, though the overall review set is varied enough to not suggest a coordinated fake review pattern.
• The single 2024 review, while positive, notes the plumber arrived much later than planned — a minor punctuality concern worth noting even though the reviewer was accommodating about it.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the age of most reviews (majority from 2017–2018), one credible and serious negative experience, and limited recent data to confirm whether current service quality matches historical performance.

Champion Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns, with numerous customers reporting charges substantially above market rates for routine work (faucet installations quoted at $750–$1,350 vs. $160–$295 elsewhere; diagnostic fees of $89–$90 retained even when work is declined). Project completion is generally solid, though some customers report unresolved issues, missed appointments, and incomplete diagnostics. The company shows inconsistency: many five-star reviews detail excellent service, while negative reviews reveal patterns of overpricing, poor communication about costs, and occasional service failures that required hiring competitors to complete work.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (at least 12) document significant overcharging compared to competitors. Examples include $750 vs. $160 for faucet installation, $1,350 vs. $295 for shower cartridge replacement, $451 for an $18–$34 capacitor, and $2,235 vs. $295 for leak diagnosis. This pattern is too consistent to ignore and suggests systemic pricing issues.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONTROVERSY: Several customers report $89–$90 diagnostic fees that are retained even when customers decline work, creating customer friction. Some reviews indicate unclear communication about whether this fee is credited toward work.
• SERVICE COMPLETION ISSUES: At least 5 reviews document incomplete work or failed diagnostics requiring customers to hire competitors (sewer line clogs unresolved in 1.5 hours, main line drain unclogged by competitor in 5 minutes; water softener misdiagnosed for well water, costing customer $5,500 in damage; pressure issue misdiagnosed, leading to unnecessary $3,100 repair vs. $1,000 competitor quote).
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews (at least 6) report missed appointments, late arrivals, rescheduling without notice, or vague time windows forcing customers to take time off work.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Several reviews describe aggressive upselling of unnecessary repairs or replacements (e.g., recommending full faucet replacement when only hose needed replacement; recommending water pressure tank replacement that competitor advised against).
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: Approximately 30 reviews from June 9, 2024, and June 2025 contain minimal detail, generic praise, or are blank (5-star with no text). While not definitively fake, the clustering and lack of specificity reduce confidence in that subset. However, the majority of reviews (220+) contain specific details, names, and concrete examples, suggesting overall authenticity.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from May–June 2025 (recent) and May–June 2024 (1 year ago), with a secondary cluster from late 2024. Recent reviews show similar patterns to older ones, suggesting issues are ongoing rather than historical.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions based on 89–127 mentions each. However, the score masks a critical bifurcation: Champion excels in professionalism and technical skill but is severely compromised by pricing practices that consistently exceed market rates by 2–4x. Customers seeking quality workmanship may be satisfied; customers prioritizing fair value will likely be disappointed. The pricing dimension (62.0, MODERATE confidence) is the primary driver of the lower overall score and reflects genuine, documented customer harm across multiple independent reviews.