Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Paul, Minnesota

Village Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and solid technical expertise. The company excels in responsiveness, punctuality, and workmanship quality, with numerous reviews praising technicians by name (Matt, Jeff, Mike, Kevin, Noah, etc.) for their knowledge and courteous demeanor. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished promptly and thoroughly. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing high costs and feeling overcharged, though some reviews acknowledge fair pricing. The company shows occasional scheduling challenges during peak periods, with a few older reviews mentioning multi-week delays.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews explicitly mention high costs and feeling overcharged (e.g., $464 for valve replacement, $195/hour labor rate, $8000 quote vs. $200 resolution). This is the primary vulnerability in the score.
• SCHEDULING INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews from 2014-2021 report significant delays (weeks to months) and broken commitments, though recent reviews (2023-2025) show improved responsiveness. This suggests operational improvements over time.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain only ratings (5.0 or 1.0) with no text, reducing data quality slightly but not affecting scoring methodology.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 7 one-star reviews exist, primarily citing poor communication, no-shows, overpricing, and lack of accountability. These are legitimate complaints, not fake reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (June 2025, May 2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5.0 stars), while older reviews (2011-2015) contain more critical feedback. Recent reviews may reflect improved operations or selection bias.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews from June 8-9, 2025 are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Soufiane very good and efficient,' 'Skylar was professional'), with identical dates and minimal detail. However, these are balanced by detailed, specific reviews, so confidence is not significantly reduced.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple locations (Chapel Hill, San Lorenzo, Pittsboro, Carrboro, Milwaukee, Westport), suggesting either multi-location operation or data aggregation from different companies, which may affect score reliability.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence, supported by 127 reviews with substantial mentions across all dimensions. However, the pricing dimension (MODERATE confidence, 18 mentions) is a notable limitation—the score may underweight legitimate cost concerns due to fewer explicit pricing mentions. Recent reviews show marked improvement in responsiveness and professionalism compared to 2014-2015 reviews, suggesting the company has addressed past operational issues. Customers should expect professional, knowledgeable service and timely completion, but should obtain detailed quotes and compare pricing with competitors before committing.

Janecky Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism (84.0) and technical experience (87.0), supported by extensive positive feedback across 28 and 19 mentions respectively. Project completion scores solidly at 81.0 with 22 mentions, indicating reliable follow-through on jobs. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness at 73.0, with multiple reviews citing costs exceeding quotes and overall expense concerns. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a company that executes quality work professionally but struggles with cost predictability and transparency.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2016, 2020) explicitly state final bills exceeded quotes by significant margins ('twice as expensive as the quote', 'went over budget all three times'). This is a material concern for the pricing dimension.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Three separate reviews (2025-02-09, 2023-06-22, 2020-06-10) document failures to call back, show up, or follow through on scheduling despite promises. These represent systemic responsiveness issues.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCIDENTS: Two reviews (2024-06-09, 2022-06-10) describe serious workmanship failures—scorched walls without heat shield protection and structural damage to home foundation from improper drilling. These are high-severity issues.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Five reviews contain no text or only rating (dates: 2024-06-09, 2023-06-10 x2, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2020-06-10). These were excluded from scoring but suggest potential review manipulation or incomplete submissions.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2019-2025, while older reviews (2015-2016) contain pricing complaints. Recent reviews are more favorable, but pricing concerns persist across time periods.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Dave, Andrew, Nate, Seth, Charlie, Ed, Ryan, Matt) with varying performance levels. Andrew and Nate receive disproportionate praise, suggesting quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to 50 usable reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant operational inconsistencies: while technical work quality and professionalism are genuinely strong, pricing transparency and communication reliability are material weaknesses that should weigh heavily in contractor selection decisions. The company's performance appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned and whether the job is complex (where they excel) versus routine (where scheduling failures occur).

Harmony Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is a clear strength, with all five reviews explicitly praising punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and pleasant demeanor. Project completion is solid, with multiple reviews confirming jobs finished cleanly and on time. Pricing receives strong marks for fairness and transparency, though only three reviews explicitly address cost. Technical skill and workmanship quality are well-documented across four reviews. The primary limitation is the small sample size (5 reviews) and age of data, with most reviews from 2020 or earlier.

• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical confidence; recommend collecting more recent reviews for validation
• Most reviews are 3+ years old (2020-2021); only one review from 2023; recency data is limited
• Excessive punctuation in some reviews (multiple exclamation marks) suggests enthusiastic but potentially less objective feedback
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; while not necessarily fake, lack of any negative or mixed reviews is atypical and should be noted

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size and age of most reviews; while the data strongly suggests quality work, a larger and more recent review pool would significantly increase confidence in these findings.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and friendly technicians across both the 702 PlumbAIR and Phillips Plumbing entities represented in this dataset. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite billing surprises, overcharging, and hidden fees that temper the pricing score. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting jobs finished correctly and on time, but several serious negative reviews describe abandoned work, incomplete repairs, no-shows, and failure to follow through on callbacks — including one detailed account of a major repipe left unfinished for months. Experience scores well due to numerous specific mentions of skilled diagnostics, knowledgeable technicians, and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe poor-quality work, wrong fittings, and recurring leaks after repairs.

• MIXED ENTITY ALERT: This review set appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct businesses — 'Phillips Plumbing' (multiple locations including Sarasota FL, Las Vegas NV, El Cerrito CA, and others) and '702 PlumbAIR' (Las Vegas NV). Scores reflect an aggregate that may not accurately represent either business individually.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 contains 15+ reviews posted on the same date, many with generic praise ('Great service', 'Excellent service', 'Amazing service'), no specific job details, and identical 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with review padding or solicited bulk reviews and reduces confidence in the overall positive skew.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contained no text content (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the Donald/Marty kitchen repair story appears three times; the Phillips/El Cerrito Ralph review appears twice; the 'Solid 5 star company' Anthony review appears twice). Duplicates were counted only once per dimension to avoid score inflation.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews date from 2014–2019, which is more than 5 years old. While recent 2025 reviews are present and weighted more heavily, the older negative reviews (including serious complaints about abandoned work, billing fraud, and unprofessional conduct) remain relevant to the overall assessment.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple 1-star reviews describe significant failures including: a major repipe left incomplete for 5+ months with an open foundation hole and missing P-trap; a repair that caused water damage to an AC system twice with no callback; a technician who damaged a new wood floor and refused accountability; a billing dispute where a promised refund was never issued; and a technician described as condescending and threatening. These incidents meaningfully reduce scores for project completion and professionalism.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe being charged more than quoted, hidden fees (credit card surcharges, undisclosed material charges), or rates described as higher than competitors. One review noted a 30% premium over comparable companies.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for general trend assessment given the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the mixed-entity dataset, suspected bulk review padding on 2025-05-10, and a pattern of serious unresolved complaints that suggest meaningful quality inconsistency across technicians and locations.

Hurlburt demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is a clear strength, with six reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, attitude, and responsiveness from both office and field staff. Project completion is well-supported with five mentions of thorough work, complex job handling, and reliable follow-through. Experience and skill are evident in five reviews highlighting technical expertise, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. Pricing receives solid marks across four mentions for fair, transparent, and reasonable rates without hidden charges.

• Review dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews: only 2 of 6 usable reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Four reviews are from 2021 or earlier, with two from 2012 and 2014, limiting recency validity.
• One review (2014-07-31) contains only 'unknown' as text and provides no substantive data; excluded from analysis.
• All six usable reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language. While not definitively fake, the complete absence of any critical feedback or mixed experiences is atypical and should be noted as a potential limitation.
• Review from 2018 focuses on parts procurement and customer service rather than plumbing work quality, introducing some scope variance in the dataset.

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (6 reviews), heavy weighting toward older reviews (only 33% from past 12 months), and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback that would normally validate a score through contrast. The score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and experience, but recent performance data is limited.

Peterson Plumbing earns strong marks for responsiveness and same-day service, with dozens of reviewers praising prompt arrival, courteous technicians, and clear communication — particularly highlighting staff members Rose, Alex, Jim, and Jamie by name. Pricing is a notable weak point: while many reviewers describe costs as reasonable or fair, a meaningful minority explicitly called out high or surprising charges (e.g., $707 for a faucet swap, $305 for a hose bib, $379 for a switch replacement), pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is generally solid, but is tempered by a few serious failures including an abandoned job with a hole left in a wall and a water leak, a no-show with no callback, and a gas leak left unresolved overnight. Experience scores well overall, with multiple reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, though one review cited a misdiagnosis on a furnace motherboard. The professionalism score is moderated by two reviews describing the owner yelling at a customer and rude behavior from office staff.

• 7 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count without contributing usable data.
• 2 reviews marked 'unknown' with no detail were excluded from scoring.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 25+) are more than 3 years old, with many dating back to 2000–2009. These older reviews carry reduced weight given potential changes in staff, ownership practices, and service quality over time.
• One 1-star review (2023) alleges the owner yelled at a female homeowner and refused to provide a report, citing sexist behavior — this is a serious professionalism flag and was weighted accordingly.
• One 1-star review (2024) reports a hole left in a wall with an active water leak — a significant project completion failure.
• One 1-star review (2021) reports a no-show with rude follow-up call — a professionalism and project completion failure.
• One 1-star review (2020) describes a highly disorganized scheduling experience and alleged threats from the owner regarding leaving a review — flagged as a credibility and professionalism concern.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; reviews include specific names, dates, job types, and a realistic mix of positive and negative feedback, suggesting an authentic review set.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over two decades, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence — however, consumers should weight recent reviews (2023–2025) more heavily, as older reviews may not reflect current service quality, and should note recurring pricing complaints and isolated but serious professionalism incidents.