Find Nearby Plumbers In Jefferson City, Missouri

Plumb Magic shows a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Positive reviews praise punctuality, politeness, and technical competence, but multiple negative reviews — including a failed diagnosis, an incomplete installation that caused water damage, unreturned phone calls, and repeated no-shows — significantly drag down every dimension. Pricing is a recurring concern, with at least two reviewers explicitly calling charges inflated or unfair, and one alleging unethical insurance-related conduct. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with documented cases of abandoned follow-through, a dishwasher reconnection failure causing floor damage, and a misdiagnosed water heater repair that the customer had to fix themselves. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are heavily concentrated in 2011–2014, making them less relevant to current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2014, which is 10+ years ago. Only one positive review exists from the past 12 months (October 2024). The most recent negative review is from 2021. The score should be treated with caution given the age of most data.
• TWO REVIEWS MARKED 'unknown' WITH NO TEXT: Two reviews (rated 4.0 and 2.0, both dated 2014-05-31) contain no usable content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe significant failures — water damage from incomplete work, a misdiagnosed repair with no callback, and alleged unethical insurance pricing conduct. These are not minor complaints and materially affect trustworthiness.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with usable data spanning over a decade, but the heavy skew toward older positive reviews and the presence of multiple serious, specific negative incidents means the score should be treated as MODERATE reliability — the current service quality may differ significantly from what this historical average reflects.

The reviews paint a deeply mixed and largely negative picture of this contractor. Professionalism is a major concern, with multiple reviews describing rude behavior, entering a home without permission, no uniforms or marked vehicles, and poor communication — dragging the score down significantly despite one or two older positive accounts. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating the job was not completed, work had to be redone by another plumber, or the contractor left without resolving the issue. Pricing is flagged negatively, with one reviewer noting the name 'Affordable' is misleading and another paying nearly $500 for work that ultimately failed within a week. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few older reviews praising thoroughness and problem-solving, but these are outweighed by recent failures and are from 2013–2021, reducing their relevance. The overall WW Score is low and reflects a contractor with serious, documented service quality issues in recent years.

• Three reviews consist of only a period ('.') or the word 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no substantive content — these are likely fake or placeholder reviews and have been excluded from scoring.
• The three blank/unknown reviews are all dated 2014–2015, suggesting possible historical review padding.
• Most positive reviews with actual content are from 2013 and 2021, while the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are all 1-star with serious complaints — a strong negative recency trend.
• One review describes potentially fraudulent business behavior: requesting payment be made out to an individual personally, requesting cash or card number over the phone, and claiming a locked company bank account — this raises legitimacy concerns beyond service quality.
• Only 9 total reviews analyzed, with 3 excluded as non-substantive, leaving a small usable sample that limits statistical reliability.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small number of substantive reviews, a clear negative recency trend, suspected fake reviews inflating the raw rating, and documented concerns about business legitimacy — the score directionally reflects poor recent performance but cannot be considered statistically robust.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 5-star review from 2014 praising professionalism, integrity, and technical competence; one 1-star review from 2022 citing cancellation, delayed service, and incomplete work. The 8-year gap between reviews and conflicting narratives make reliable scoring impossible. The 2022 review is recent and specific, suggesting potential service quality decline, but a single negative review cannot establish a trend.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEWS: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME RECENCY GAP: One review is from 2014 (10 years old); one from 2022. Historical data has minimal relevance.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Positive 5-star review conflicts sharply with negative 1-star review. Cannot determine current service quality.
• LIMITED MENTION COUNTS: All dimensions with data have only 1-2 mentions, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Do not use this report for decision-making. Collect at least 5-10 recent reviews before assessing this contractor.

With only two reviews spanning six years, meaningful scoring is extremely limited. The 2022 review is severely negative, describing an unresolved warranty claim on a defective mini-split unit installed by the company, with the owner refusing to return calls — directly impacting professionalism and project completion scores downward. The 2016 review is positive, noting punctuality, efficient job completion, and good communication, but it is over eight years old and carries minimal current relevance. The stark contrast between these two reviews and the wide date gap make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about the contractor's current performance. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are approximately 6 years apart (2016 and 2022). The positive review is over 8 years old and should be given very little weight in assessing current performance.
• The 2022 review describes an active warranty dispute with an allegedly defective unit and owner non-responsiveness — a serious unresolved complaint that significantly undermines trust.
• No pricing data was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• With only 1 positive and 1 negative review, no pattern analysis for fake reviews is possible, but the generic phrasing of the 2016 review warrants mild caution.

This score report is highly unreliable due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), a large date gap between them, and a serious unresolved complaint in the most recent review — prospective customers should seek additional references before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. The single review mentions professionalism (friendly, honest, reliable attitude) and experience (knowledgeable, can help with plumbing needs), but provides no specific evidence regarding pricing or project completion details. The review is also extremely dated (December 2009, over 14 years old) and lacks concrete project examples or specifics.

• Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient sample size for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is extremely dated (December 2009) — 14+ years old, well outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Review contains generic praise with no specific project details, completion timelines, or pricing information
• No evidence provided regarding pricing fairness, project completion, or on-time delivery

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required) and extreme age of the single available review.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praised the team's rapid arrival and communication, which supports a modest professionalism score. The technician's ability to diagnose a problem that others had previously failed to identify suggests solid technical experience. Project completion is inferred from the reviewer's apparent satisfaction and the explanation provided post-repair, though no explicit confirmation of full job completion was stated. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2018-07-10, which is more than 6 years old. This data may not reflect current service quality.
• All dimensions scored from a single data point — treat all scores as highly speculative and low confidence.

This score report is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current or consistent performance.