Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Cloud, Minnesota

Across six usable reviews, this contractor consistently receives praise for punctuality, courteous communication, and responsiveness — with one detailed review highlighting proactive preparation, thorough explanation, and post-installation maintenance tips. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting timely resolution of issues including a water leak and a long-standing pressure problem. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as reasonable, but the limited mentions keep confidence low for that dimension. Workmanship quality is referenced in several reviews, though mostly in general terms rather than technical specifics. Overall the picture is positive, but the small review pool and age of most reviews limit how much weight this score should carry.

• Only 7 total reviews, with 1 marked 'unknown' and excluded from scoring — sample size is very small and limits reliability.
• Five of the six usable reviews are older than 12 months; four are more than 2 years old, and two are from 2017 and 2020 respectively. Recency is a concern — contractor performance may have changed.
• One review from 2012 contained no usable text and was excluded entirely.
• Most reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language; however, the detailed 2022 water heater review provides specific, credible narrative that reduces fake review concern for that entry. The shorter reviews are generic but not identical in phrasing, so no strong fake review pattern is flagged.
• No negative reviews present — this may reflect genuine quality or may indicate an incomplete review picture given the small sample.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to a very small review pool of only 6 usable reviews, the majority of which are more than one year old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current performance with confidence.

Shawn's business receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, though the extremely small review pool limits confidence significantly. Professionalism is supported by mentions of promptness, immediate responsiveness, and being described as professional across all three reviews. Pricing is noted as fair in two reviews, warranting a modest but conservative score. Project completion is supported by references to thorough work, same-morning repairs, and repeat usage — a strong indirect signal of follow-through. Experience is inferred conservatively from the word 'competent' and the pattern of repeat customers, but no detailed technical descriptions are provided. Two of the three reviews are over 10 years old, which substantially reduces their relevance to current performance.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not statistically reliable.
• Two of three reviews are dated 2013 and 2014 — over 10 years old. Only one review (2024) reflects recent performance. Heavy recency discount applied.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with limited specificity. While not conclusively fake, the lack of detail and uniformly perfect ratings warrants caution.
• The 2024 review uses referral-chain language ('they know a guy') which, while enthusiastic, is generic and lacks specific job details — treated as low-detail evidence.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are more than a decade old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current quality.

Across four reviews, this contractor shows consistent follow-through on completing jobs and returning when promised, which supports a moderate project completion score. Professionalism is noted positively in terms of punctuality and friendliness, though one reviewer noted debris was left on the ground after the job, which slightly tempers that score. Experience is implied through repeat usage by at least one customer and successful completion of multiple job types, but no detailed technical commentary was provided. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. All reviews are over 9 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this report.

• ALL reviews are older than 9 years (2012–2015). None fall within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very thin data set and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• Two reviews ('They did a good job.' and 'They've done several jobs for me.') are extremely brief and provide minimal usable detail, reducing scoring precision.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension could not be scored at all.
• One reviewer gave 5 stars despite noting the contractor left debris on the ground, suggesting ratings may not fully reflect service quality.

This score has LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, all of which are more than 9 years old, a complete absence of pricing data, and minimal detail in several reviews — it should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

This contractor shows mixed performance across reviews spanning 6 years. Two recent positive reviews (2023, 2018) highlight affordability, quick response times, and successful project completion, but a significantly older negative review (2017) documents serious professionalism failures including poor communication, incomplete troubleshooting, and property damage. The limited review count and wide date range create substantial uncertainty. Pricing appears consistently fair based on explicit mentions, but professionalism scores are pulled down by documented communication breakdowns and lack of follow-through in the 2017 incident.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent positive review is from January 2023; oldest negative review is from July 2017 (6+ years old). Unclear if issues have been resolved or if company practices have changed.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. WW Score reliability is inherently limited with fewer than 5 reviews.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising professionalism and 1-star review documenting serious professionalism failures (no communication, incomplete work, property damage). This suggests either inconsistent service quality or significant operational changes over time.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: The 2017 negative review explicitly mentions lack of communication from technicians. The 2023 positive review emphasizes excellent communication. This inconsistency warrants caution.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (n=3), significant time gaps between reviews, and conflicting evidence of service quality. The score reflects current positive trends but cannot reliably predict future performance given the documented professionalism issues from 2017.

Allen's Plumbing has a large and deeply mixed review history spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviews praise individual technicians (JP, Bennett, Tarin, Justin, Jonah, Davin, Daniel, etc.) as courteous, knowledgeable, and professional, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe serious failures including no-shows, rescheduling without notice, rude dispatchers, and at least one incident of a technician starting a fire and another leaving hazardous waste on a client's floor. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out charges as excessive or shocking (e.g., $1,050 labor quote for a faucet/disposal install, $2,150 for a water heater, $600 for a 20-minute wax ring job, $423 for a wrong diagnosis), and several noted hidden trip/diagnostic charges not disclosed upfront, though a handful praised fair or competitive pricing. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were completed well and on time, but recurring complaints about no-shows, rescheduled appointments, unfinished work, and at least one case of a job left incomplete for weeks drag the score down significantly. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, with many reviewers specifically praising technical skill and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe botched repairs, wrong diagnoses, and damage caused by technicians.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews appear to be exact duplicates — the 'Justin arrived in a timely manner' review (5-star) appears on both 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04, and the long 'second Yelp review for Allen's Plumbing' (5-star) also appears on both dates. These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• POTENTIAL GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews appear to reference locations outside Hawaii (Idaho Falls, Pennsylvania, Florida, Tennessee, St. Petersburg, Lehigh Valley) which may indicate this listing aggregates reviews from multiple businesses or a different Allen's Plumbing entity. Scores from clearly off-island reviews were still included but noted as potentially belonging to a different business.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. A significant number of negative reviews regarding scheduling failures, rude dispatchers, and billing disputes date from 2016–2022. More recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positively for technician quality but pricing complaints persist into 2025.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT FLAGS: One review (2024-01-24) alleges a technician started a fire between walls causing $10,000 in damage. One review (2021-09-07) describes hazardous waste left on a child's bedroom floor. One review (2019-03-08) alleges a bill of over $550 with no receipt and disputed charges. One review (2024-09-03) describes a $423 charge for a completely wrong diagnosis with management refusing to refund. These are serious quality and ethics concerns that weigh heavily on scoring.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe undisclosed trip/diagnostic charges, quotes that changed dramatically on-site, and pressure to accept additional services. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-05-13) gives 5 stars but the text is entirely negative ('Don't believe Allen's commercial on TV. He doesn't care about his customers'). This review's star rating was disregarded as inconsistent with its content; the text was used for qualitative scoring only.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (196 total, 172 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in experiences, credible reports of serious incidents, persistent pricing transparency complaints, recurring scheduling failures, and possible geographic data contamination from reviews that may belong to a different Allen's Plumbing entity outside Hawaii.

This review set aggregates feedback across what appears to be multiple contractors and companies all operating under or associated with the 'ASAP Plumbing' name, which significantly complicates scoring. Positive reviews — many centered on individual plumbers named Bruce, Jerry, and Anthony — consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, driving scores upward across all dimensions. However, a substantial cluster of serious negative reviews describes abandoned work, dangerous code violations, dishonest upselling, rude behavior, and jobs left incomplete or improperly executed, pulling scores down considerably. The water heater installation failure described in two separate reviews (likely the same incident) is a particularly damaging data point for both project completion and experience. Overall, the score reflects a deeply mixed contractor profile where individual technician quality varies enormously and company-level accountability is a recurring concern.

• MULTIPLE ENTITIES WARNING: Reviews appear to reference several distinct contractors and possibly multiple separate businesses all using the 'ASAP Plumbing' name across different geographic regions (California, Kansas, Virginia, etc.). Scores should not be interpreted as reflecting a single unified business.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contained no text content (only a rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews. Their uniformly positive ratings with zero detail raise concerns about authenticity.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: Several reviews consist of only a period ('.'), 'unknown', or a single generic sentence with no specifics. These add no usable data and inflate the raw star average artificially.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2002 to 2024. A significant number of reviews predate 2020 and were given reduced weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) include a dangerous water heater installation failure and an abandoned job with no follow-up, which are weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2002) describes a boiler flue installation that was not up to code, caused carbon monoxide leakage, triggered a fire department response, and was subsequently repaired improperly. Another (2024) describes an oversized water heater installed without a drip pan in a confined space, leading to unit failure within a month. These are significant safety and competence red flags.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were started but never completed, with the company becoming unreachable afterward. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods and locations.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least two reviews describe charges of approximately $1,800 for water heater installations that resulted in immediate failure, followed by demands for an additional $580 without proper diagnosis. One review describes a $5,200 quote that a second plumber resolved for $160.
• HIDDEN FEES: One reviewer noted an undisclosed 3.5% credit card surcharge revealed only after work was completed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a guide to any single contractor is LOW because the reviews almost certainly reflect multiple distinct businesses and individual plumbers operating under similar or identical trade names across different regions — consumers should verify which specific entity and technician they are hiring before relying on this score.