Find Nearby Plumbers In Shakopee, Minnesota

Top Choice Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by exceptional professionalism (87.5) and technical expertise (88.2). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship, with numerous customers praising Tony's responsiveness and knowledge. Project completion is solid at 85.0, with most jobs finished on time and within budget. However, pricing presents a notable weakness at 76.3, with several customers reporting overquoting, scare tactics, and concerns about parts quality. Three negative reviews (1-star and 2-star ratings) specifically cite pricing misalignment and diagnostic errors, which temper the otherwise strong reputation.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2024-06-03, 2016-04-06, 2014-11-04, 2014-04-30) report overquoting, scare tactics, and parts quality issues. Eugene's quote was 4x actual cost; another customer reported $5,000 quote for $300 fix. This pattern suggests inconsistent pricing practices or diagnostic accuracy issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Several reviews from 2021-06-10 are empty or near-identical in structure (one completely blank, one single sentence). Two reviews from 2020-06-26 and 2021-06-10 contain nearly identical text about water heater repair with pocket knife. This suggests possible review manipulation or duplicate submissions.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: 2013-02-27 review documents a complete no-show with no follow-up communication, indicating occasional reliability lapses despite otherwise strong punctuality claims.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are 5+ years old (2013-2019). Only 6 reviews from past 12 months (2024, 2023). Recent reviews show mixed sentiment (one 5-star, two 1-star), suggesting possible service quality variation or inconsistency in recent period.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Review from 2014-11-04 criticizes 'his guy' for poor technique and incomplete work, suggesting quality varies by technician, not just owner Tony.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 26-38 mentions, the pricing dimension relies on only 18 mentions and shows clear evidence of customer dissatisfaction with overquoting practices. The presence of potential fake reviews and a significant recency gap (most reviews 5+ years old) reduces confidence in current service quality. The three 1-2 star reviews citing pricing and diagnostic errors are credible and specific, warranting serious consideration despite the overwhelmingly positive overall rating.

All three reviews are positive in tone, with mentions of promptness, courtesy, trustworthiness, and reasonable pricing lending modest support to the professionalism and pricing dimensions. Project completion is partially supported — one review notes the job was completed, another mentions work was done but explicitly excludes drain cleaning, and a third implies follow-through by noting the contractor was still working hard when the customer returned. No review explicitly addresses technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability, so the experience dimension cannot be scored. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool and the age of all reviews, all of which are over 10 years old.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OVER 10 YEARS OLD (2012–2013): These reviews are significantly outdated and may not reflect current quality, pricing, or business practices. Treat with caution.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable.
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION HAS NO DATA: No review explicitly described technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability. This dimension was excluded from scoring.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Two of three reviews use brief, non-specific positive language ('prompt, courteous,' 'very nice') with limited detail. While not conclusive of fake reviews, specificity is low.

This WW Score should be treated as very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 10 years old, providing an insufficient and outdated basis for evaluating this contractor's current performance.

Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and communication. Technical experience is solid (81.0), with many reviews highlighting knowledgeable and skilled work. Project completion is reliable (78.5), though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. However, pricing is a critical weakness (42.0), with overwhelming complaints about exorbitant charges—often 2-3x market rates, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling. This pricing problem significantly depresses the overall WW Score despite operational strengths.

• PRICING CRISIS: 89 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Recurring pattern of quotes 2-3x higher than competitors, with numerous examples of $600-$2300+ charges for routine work. This is the dominant complaint across the review set.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (no text, only rating/date). At least 15 reviews contain only 'unknown' or blank text with 5-star ratings. These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated reviews and reduce confidence in the 5-star aggregate.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in outcomes—some reviews praise exceptional work; others report incomplete jobs, misdiagnosis, and damage caused by technicians (e.g., burned wall, broken pipes). Suggests inconsistent training or quality control.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews report promised callbacks never received, unresolved complaints, and poor management responsiveness. This undermines professionalism score despite individual technician praise.
• DAMAGE LIABILITY: At least 3 reviews document property damage (burned wall, broken pipes, flooded cabinet) with company refusing responsibility or offering inadequate compensation.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued pricing complaints and service inconsistencies. No evidence of improvement over time.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 234 reviews with high-confidence data across all four dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with strong individual technician performance and professionalism but severely undermined by systemic pricing abuse and inconsistent quality control. The pricing dimension (42.0) is particularly well-evidenced with 89 explicit mentions and is the primary driver of the below-average overall score.

These reviews are for a Chinese restaurant, not a contractor or plumber, so the WW Score framework has been applied as best as possible to the available data. Professionalism scores very low due to multiple explicit reports of rude staff, hanging up on customers, refusing service, and poor handling of order errors. Project completion (mapped to order accuracy and delivery follow-through) is also very poor, with numerous reviews citing wrong orders, extreme delivery delays, and one instance of a foreign object (a gold tooth) found in food. Pricing sentiment is mixed — several reviewers called the food reasonably priced or fair, while others explicitly called it overpriced for the quality received. Food quality (mapped to experience) is the strongest dimension, with many reviewers praising freshness, taste, and portions, though offset by serious complaints including a food poisoning incident and burnt food.

• WRONG BUSINESS TYPE: These reviews are for a Chinese restaurant, not a contractor or plumber. The WW Score framework is designed for trade/home service professionals. All dimension mappings are approximate and this score should not be used as a standard WW contractor report.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year relative to the most recent review date (2022-12-31). Many reviews date back to 2011–2016, which significantly reduces the reliability of the overall picture. More recent reviews (2021–2022) show continued order accuracy and service issues.
• SERIOUS SAFETY FLAG: One reviewer (2019-01-21) explicitly reported food poisoning after eating at this establishment. This is a significant health and safety concern.
• FOREIGN OBJECT FLAG: One reviewer (2017-06-16) reported finding a gold tooth in their fried rice, indicating a serious food safety and hygiene failure.
• HYGIENE FLAG: One reviewer (2016-05-06) described the restaurant as filthy with dust covering floors, walls, tables, and chairs.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FLAG: Multiple reviews (2016-08-18, 2013-01-26, 2021-10-06) describe staff being rude, refusing service, hanging up on customers, and mishandling complaints — a consistent pattern across multiple years.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and date. Language is not repetitive or suspiciously generic. No fake review flag raised.

Because these reviews are for a food establishment rather than a contractor, and because a significant portion of reviews are more than 3 years old, this WW Score output should be treated as directional only and not as a standard contractor reliability assessment.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews are also severely dated (2015 and 2016), providing no insight into current performance. One review praises expertise and speed, while the other criticizes responsiveness and communication failures over a multi-year period. The conflicting signals and minimal sample size prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• CRITICAL: Both reviews are 8–9 years old (2015–2016) — no recent data on current performance
• Conflicting signals: one 5-star review praising expertise vs. one 1-star review citing severe communication failures and non-responsiveness
• The negative review describes a pattern of non-responsiveness over several years, suggesting systemic communication issues
• Insufficient mention density across all dimensions (max 2 mentions per dimension) — all scores carry LIMITED confidence only

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and complete absence of recent data (all reviews from 2015–2016). Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are severely negative with explicit evidence of major failures across multiple dimensions. Review 1 (2019) documents three wall leaks, a gas leak, and improper rough-in work requiring dismantling. Review 2 (2011) describes damaged wiring, dented garage doors, uncovered PEX lines resulting in debris contamination, a rock lodged in the heat pump motor, and subsequent warranty disputes with threats of collections. Professionalism is undermined by denial of damage and poor communication. Project completion is critically compromised by incomplete/defective work. Experience is questioned by fundamental installation errors. However, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and extremely limited mention counts across all dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 is from 2011 (13+ years old) — significantly outdated; only Review 1 from 2019 is recent
• SEVERE QUALITY ISSUES: Both reviews describe catastrophic failures including gas leaks, water leaks, equipment damage, and warranty disputes — suggests systemic problems
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Review 2 explicitly documents denial of responsibility and collection threats — indicates poor customer relations and accountability
• All mention counts are at minimum (1-2 reviews per dimension) — confidence is LIMITED across all scored dimensions

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Only 2 reviews exist, both are extremely negative with critical safety and quality failures, one is over a decade old, and mention counts are too low to support confident scoring. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing any conclusions about current contractor performance.