Find Nearby Plumbers In Minneapolis, Minnesota

Able Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. On the positive side, a substantial majority of reviewers praise responsiveness, same-day availability, polite technicians, and fair pricing — with named plumbers like Rob, Nelson, Danilo, and Dwayne frequently cited for skill and professionalism. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across multiple years and involving different customers — describe serious recurring issues: poor workmanship requiring callbacks, failure to honor guarantees, pricing disputes with no transparency, and office staff who are dismissive or unresponsive. Project completion is the most contested dimension, with multiple reviews describing jobs that leaked after completion, were abandoned, or were never followed up on. Pricing scores are dragged down by several credible accounts of inflated labor charges, undisclosed hourly rates, and parts marked up well above retail — though many other customers found pricing fair or even better than competitors.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Called for a fix to a leak behind the wall of my upstairs bathroom. Rob (owner) came out...' appears twice with different dates (2024-06-06 and 2023-11-11) and identical text. This is a likely duplicate and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'I called Able in off hours and left a message...' (garbage disposal / Sa's Plumbing) appears twice with different dates (2023-06-07 and 2023-01-19) and near-identical text. Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Nope. I was horrified to find an Able plumber without a mask...' appears twice with different dates (2021-06-07 and 2020-10-10). Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Six reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, or single-word responses ('Great', 'The absolute best.'). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2016–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range, indicating persistent rather than isolated issues. No strong recency trend toward improvement or decline is clearly evident.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same failure modes — jobs that leaked after completion, guarantees not honored, and office staff refusing to engage with complaints. This consistency across unrelated reviewers increases the credibility of these negative accounts.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Several credible negative reviews describe being charged without upfront quotes, parts marked up significantly above retail, and hourly rates never disclosed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2013-04-16, 1-star) references a different listing address and contains no substantive content. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring and credible negative patterns around billing transparency, guarantee enforcement, and project follow-through alongside the genuine praise for responsiveness and technician skill.

B&B Plumbing has a large and long-running review history that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviewers praise punctuality, courteous technicians, and clean work habits — but a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe rude staff, unresponsive management, and broken promises, which prevents a higher score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple detailed negative reviews describe hidden fees (vehicle charges, credit card surcharges, travel fees), charges for unproductive diagnostic time, and quotes significantly higher than competitors, while positive reviewers do cite fair pricing — the tension between these camps pulls the score down substantially. Project completion is similarly split: many reviewers report smooth, timely, complete jobs, but several credible negative reviews describe abandoned work, unkept guarantees, unresolved issues after multiple visits, and a notable case where the owner promised completion then went on vacation leaving the job unfinished. Experience scores moderately — most technicians are praised as knowledgeable, especially with Kohler products, but at least two detailed negative reviews describe a technician who lacked basic product knowledge and another whose work was found not to be up to code, which meaningfully reduces confidence in consistent skill levels.

• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence inflates the apparent star average without contributing meaningful data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated '2024-06-09', '2023-06-10', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', and similar round dates with no review text are suspicious. Batches of blank 5-star reviews on the same date are a known pattern of review padding and should be treated with skepticism.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The RHEEM tankless water heater review by what appears to be the same customer was submitted twice (2021-06-10 and 2021-03-23) with nearly identical text. Similarly, the 'So happy with the work done by B & B plumbing' concrete pipe review appears twice (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-20). Duplicate reviews may indicate platform cross-posting or manipulation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent substantive negative reviews (2024-10-10 and 2024-09-12) are within the past 12 months and describe serious issues — hidden fees charged to a disabled person and complete non-responsiveness after initial contact. These recent negatives were weighted more heavily.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: Multiple negative reviews across different years describe the owner or management becoming unreachable after problems arose (2021-01-07, 2021-10-06, 2013-05-27). This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2013-05-27) describes a technician making sexual advances toward and physically touching a customer's mother. The company's follow-up response was also described as inadequate. While this is an older review, it is a serious allegation.
• GUARANTEE VIOLATION: At least one review (2014-06-20) explicitly describes B&B refusing to honor their stated one-year workmanship guarantee, requiring payment for a return visit on the same issue within the warranty period.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should note that the score reflects a genuinely divided customer base — roughly 20-25% of substantive reviews describe serious problems with pricing transparency, follow-through, and management accountability, and these concerns appear consistently across multiple years including recent reviews.

Neighborhood Heating & Cooling receives strong praise for individual technician professionalism — particularly Dustin, Brian, Glen, and Eric — with many reviewers citing friendliness, punctuality, clear explanations, and respectful attitudes. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by several serious incidents: an unauthorized employee entering a customer's home unannounced, repeated failures to follow through on emergency dispatch promises, and at least one rude office staff member. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible reviews alleging dramatically inflated quotes — including a $6,000 AC quote repaired elsewhere for $140, a $7,000 furnace replaced elsewhere for under $3,000, and a $3,000 AC repair fixed by another company for a fraction of the cost — which severely undermines trust in the company's pricing integrity. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are documented cases of abandoned or unresolved work, a humidifier left incomplete after multiple visits, and a boiler misdiagnosis that left a family without heat for weeks. Technical experience scores moderately well based on positive reviews of skilled diagnostics and thorough workmanship, but is tempered by at least two credible accounts of misdiagnosis or unnecessary upselling.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least 3 independent reviews across different years allege that the company provided quotes 2x–5x higher than what competitors charged for the same work. These are specific, detailed, and credible accounts — not vague complaints. This is a significant red flag for potential price gouging or dishonest diagnostics.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020, 2025) describe the company failing to honor 24/7 emergency service commitments, with poor dispatcher communication, missed callbacks, and no-shows during urgent heating outages in winter.
• UNAUTHORIZED HOME ENTRY: One detailed 2025 review describes an employee walking into a customer's home unannounced without knocking. This is a serious professionalism and safety concern.
• MISDIAGNOSIS / NEGLIGENCE CONCERN: A 2025 review describes a family left without heat for weeks due to an apparent misdiagnosis of a boiler issue. A second company identified the problem immediately upon inspection. The customer paid $800 for incorrect service.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: A 2018 review describes a humidifier left taped off and unfinished after 3–4 service visits with no resolution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are therefore given higher weight. Older negative reviews (2011, 2018, 2022) are noted but weighted less heavily. However, the pricing complaint pattern spans 2011 to 2025, suggesting it may be a persistent issue rather than an isolated one.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW SKEW: The volume of 5-star reviews is high and many are brief or generic (e.g., 'Always very nice', 'Comprehensive courteous skilled professionals!'). Several reviews have no text at all (rating only). While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the ratio of detailed negative reviews to vague positive ones warrants caution. Confidence is not reduced but this pattern is noted.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (51 total, 48 usable) spanning 2011–2025, giving it HIGH overall confidence in terms of data volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and recurring allegations of inflated pricing, emergency service failures, and at least one serious misdiagnosis — issues that the high volume of brief positive reviews may be obscuring.

Blaylock Plumbing has a clearly mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: many reviewers praise friendliness, punctuality, and courteous staff, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes rude owners, an unresponsive manager (Jenny), a plumber who failed to check his own work, and poor communication around quotes and scheduling. Pricing is similarly divided — numerous reviewers cite fair and affordable rates, but several recent reviews flag steep hourly rates ($190–$200/hour), trip fees, and a $130 add-on charge for a 10-minute backflow test, pulling the score down considerably. Project completion scores moderately well, with several reviews praising thorough sewer replacements, follow-through on yard restoration, and same-day service, but offset by at least two cases of incomplete or unchecked work requiring a second plumber. Experience scores reasonably well overall, with specific praise for technical problem-solving on sewer lines, pipe replacements, and creative access solutions, though negative reviews cite cheap bulk parts and inadequate workmanship checks.

• 9 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review mentions 'Souffles were very good' which is clearly a misfiled review for a restaurant, not a plumbing company. This review was excluded entirely.
• Several 1-star reviews share nearly identical complaints (plumber did not check his work, rude owners, expensive hourly rate, cheap bulk parts). Two reviews in particular appear to be written by the same person or closely coordinated — one from 2022 and one from 2024 use nearly identical language and specific details. Confidence in negative review authenticity is slightly reduced for those two, but the pattern of complaints is corroborated by independent reviewers.
• A significant portion of 5-star reviews are generic with minimal detail ('Great service', 'Great plumbing company', 'Great honest people'). These were counted for overall sentiment but not scored against specific dimensions due to lack of explicit evidence.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both strong positives and notable negatives, including a pricing complaint about rates rising to $200/hour. The negative trend around pricing appears to be worsening in recent reviews and was weighted accordingly.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2012–2018). These were included but given reduced weight relative to 2023–2025 reviews.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade, with sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions to qualify as HIGH confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the polarized review pattern, suspected coordinated negative reviews, and a meaningful recent trend of pricing and professionalism complaints.

Monkey Wrench Plumbing scores well across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — multiple reviewers specifically noted promptness, courtesy, shoe removal, and clear communication. Project completion is supported by several reviews describing jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, including a remodel completed on schedule. Pricing is mentioned positively in four reviews using terms like 'reasonable,' 'affordable,' and 'good price,' suggesting fair and transparent value. Experience is evidenced by references to Nick's Licensed Master Plumber status, quality workmanship, and notably honest behavior when he lacked specialty equipment and declined to charge the customer. However, the majority of reviews are from 2018, with only two from 2019 and 2021, which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• Most reviews (8 of 11) are from 2018 — scores may not reflect current service quality as of 2024.
• Two reviews (2018-09-06 and 2018-09-08) are extremely brief and generic ('well satisfied', 'Very timely and professional. Would use them again!', 'I am extremely pleased...') with no specific details, which slightly raises concern about authenticity or usefulness.
• All 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — while not conclusive, this uniformity warrants mild caution and conservative scoring.
• One review (2018-09-08) provides no actionable detail and was excluded from usable data scoring for individual dimensions.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the positive signals are consistent and specific enough to be credible, but the heavy concentration of reviews from 2018 and the complete absence of any critical feedback reduce confidence in how accurately this score reflects the contractor's current performance.

Lange's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for courteous behavior, responsiveness, and communication. Technical competence is evident through positive feedback on workmanship and problem-solving. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, though limited explicit mentions prevent higher confidence. Project completion appears solid with evidence of thorough work and follow-through. However, the dataset is significantly aged (most reviews from 2013–2016) and includes two unusable entries, which moderates overall confidence in the score.

• Dataset heavily skewed toward older reviews: 6 of 8 reviews are from 2013–2016, with only 2 reviews from 2017 or later. No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• Two reviews lack substantive content: one is a single period (.), another is marked 'unknown'. These were excluded from analysis.
• One 1-star review from 2017 cites non-responsiveness and unprofessionalism, creating a notable negative data point that contrasts with otherwise positive historical reviews.
• Limited sample size (6 usable reviews) reduces statistical reliability despite moderate confidence labels.

This score should be treated with caution due to the age of most reviews and small sample size; while historical performance appears solid, the lack of recent data makes it difficult to assess current service standards with confidence.