Find Nearby Plumbers In Joplin, Missouri

WD Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with 16 mentions highlighting punctuality, respectful behavior, clear communication, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is well-documented with 14 mentions showing jobs finished on time, same-day resolutions, and follow-through on callbacks. Experience is evident in 12 mentions emphasizing technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. Pricing receives 5 mentions with generally positive feedback on fair and reasonable rates, though one reviewer noted costs slightly exceeded expectations. The company's responsiveness and ability to handle complex issues (burst pipes, water heater replacement, slab leaks) further reinforce competence.

• All 20 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — this is statistically unusual and warrants caution. While the reviews contain specific details (names, job types, timelines) that suggest authenticity, the complete absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings is a red flag for potential review curation or selection bias.
• No review dates provided — unable to assess recency or whether reviews span a reasonable time period. This limits ability to detect trends or seasonal patterns.
• Two reviews (reviews 18 and 19) are notably longer and more detailed than others, with multiple specific anecdotes and names. While this adds credibility, the contrast with shorter reviews could indicate different sources or review platforms.
• Repetitive positive language across reviews ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'respectful,' 'highly recommend') is common in genuine reviews but also consistent with curated feedback.

This WW Score of 89.2 is based on solid evidence across all dimensions with HIGH confidence overall; however, the absence of any negative reviews or ratings below 5 stars suggests potential selection bias or review curation, which moderately reduces trust in the absolute accuracy of the score. The score reliably reflects the company's strengths as presented but may not capture the full customer experience spectrum.

Osborn Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — dozens of reviews explicitly cite courteous, prompt, and communicative technicians by name. Project completion scores are high, supported by multiple accounts of jobs finished efficiently and same-day or next-day service, as well as a notable example of a free return visit on a Saturday to resolve a recurring issue. Experience scores are solid, with reviewers praising knowledgeable diagnostics, quality workmanship, and problem-solving persistence. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviews praise fair and competitive pricing — including one dramatic comparison showing Osborn at roughly half the cost of competitors — two 1-star reviews explicitly call out overcharging and one 3-star review flags a high holiday-weekend charge, which meaningfully pulls the pricing score down from what would otherwise be a higher mark. Overall, the volume and specificity of reviews across a decade-plus of data support a reliable and trustworthy score.

• 11 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A mild fake-review concern exists: a large proportion of reviews are 5-star with generic praise and no specifics. However, enough reviews name specific technicians (James, Skip, LJ, Michael, Gage, Dillon, Bryce, Roger) and describe specific jobs that the overall review set appears largely authentic.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2025 and 2024, which is positive. However, several reviews date back to 2013–2017 and were given reduced weight in scoring. The two negative reviews (1-star) are from 2018 and 2020, which are older but still relevant as they raise pricing and preparedness concerns.
• One 1-star review (2018) alleges dishonesty — claiming the technician said they replaced a burner assembly but actually replaced a pilot assembly. This is a serious allegation and was factored into both the experience and professionalism scores.
• One 1-star review (2020) alleges the technician was unprepared (no plastic sheeting to crawl under the house) and that the $250 charge for 40-45 minutes of minor work felt like a rip-off. This was factored into the pricing score.
• One 5-star review (2025-06-03) contains a veiled negative reference to a technician named 'Skip,' stating 'If it had been Skip, there would have been words.' This suggests at least one technician may have had a prior negative interaction with this customer, though no formal complaint was filed.

This WW Score is based on 54 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade, with strong recency weighting toward 2024–2025 data, and is considered highly reliable — tempered slightly by two explicit negative pricing/honesty complaints and one indirect technician concern.

Bates Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness appear in the vast majority of reviews. Project completion is also well-regarded, with many reviewers noting same-day or next-day service and jobs finished thoroughly, though two older reviews (2010 and 2021) describe incomplete work and a pinhole leak from a questionable weld, which meaningfully temper the completion score. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, but three reviews explicitly flag concerns: one mid-quote price increase, one estimate described as wildly excessive, and one older review noting the company was 'pricey,' preventing a higher score. Experience and technical skill are frequently cited positively, including solving problems other plumbers could not, but the 2021 review describing a defective weld causing a multi-year leak introduces a credible quality-control concern that limits the ceiling on this dimension.

• Four blank reviews (no text, only a 5-star rating) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews appear to reference a completely different geographic location and possibly a different 'Bates Plumbing' entity (2012 review references Snohomish, WA with different phone numbers; 2010 review references 'Kelly' as the operator). These were noted but scored conservatively given the ambiguity.
• Two reviews explicitly name 'Jeff Bates' in a very negative light (1-star, 2019 and 2021), describing rude and unprofessional behavior. These are specific and named, lending them credibility, though they may reference a different principal than the 'Mike' and 'Greg' praised in the majority of reviews.
• The 2021 review describing a pinhole weld leak causing mushroom growth in wood is a serious workmanship concern and was weighted accordingly in the experience and project completion scores.
• The 2020 reviews from July 19 and July 20 appear to be near-duplicate reviews describing the same job (same customers, same scenario, same outcome). One may be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for mention purposes.
• The 2020 May 7 reviews also appear to be near-duplicate submissions of the same experience. Counted once for mention purposes.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews (approximately 55+) are from 2020 or later, with a strong cluster in 2024–2025, lending good recency weight to the overall score. Older negative reviews (2010, 2012) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score is based on a large and relatively recent review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the presence of credible named negative reviews, at least one serious workmanship failure, mid-job price changes, and two likely duplicate submissions introduce enough noise that the score should be treated as a reliable but not unconditional endorsement.

Plumbco earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an enormous volume of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism is consistently praised — punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness appear in the vast majority of positive reviews — but is tempered by a handful of credible negative reviews citing rudeness, no-shows, and poor dispatcher conduct. Pricing scores moderately well: many reviewers explicitly call out fair, transparent, and reasonable pricing, while a meaningful minority describe the company as expensive, note upselling, or report being refused phone quotes. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a single visit, though a small number of reviews describe failed repairs, warranty refusals, and abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is the highest-scoring dimension, with dozens of reviewers specifically praising technical knowledge, creative problem-solving, and the ability to succeed where other plumbers failed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates. Examples include the 'Top notch 5 Stars / sweat welded' review (2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05), the 'Francisco and his crew' review (2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04), the 'Plumbco provides great service / Chris was professional' review (2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04), the 'On time, informative, no mess' review (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03), the 'Derrick came and replaced hot water heater' review (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03), the 'Plumbco does a great job / Chris and Hunter' review (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03), the 'Plumbco is always there when we need them' review (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03), the 'Reached out to Arie at 3am on a weekend due to a burst pipe' review (2024-12-08 and 2024-11-08), the 'Arie came to address several issues' review (2024-11-08 and 2024-10-23), the 'Ari was willing to help me over the phone' review (2024-10-09 and 2024-09-18), and multiple Arie Glasman reviews from 2024-06-06 that appear to be re-posts of reviews from 2023 and 2022. This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or bulk re-posting, which artificially inflates review count and recency signals.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — JUNE 2025 CLUSTER: Seven reviews posted between 2025-06-03 and 2025-06-08 are exact duplicates of each other in pairs, suggesting coordinated or automated re-posting. Confidence in the recency signal of this cluster is LOW.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — JUNE 2024 CLUSTER: A large cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-06 contains many reviews that are identical or near-identical to reviews posted in 2023, 2022, and 2021 under the same or similar reviewer language. This cluster appears to be a bulk re-upload of older reviews, not genuine new customer experiences.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: Several 1-star reviews contain specific, detailed, and credible complaints including: warranty refusal and hang-ups on customers (2024-06-06), failed repairs and overcharging (2024-03-20), no-show appointments with no callback (2021-07-22), rude owner behavior and threatening a reviewer's employer (2019-01-10), a misdiagnosis that would have cost $9,000 vs. a $350 actual fix (2015-01-19), a failed pipe winterization job resulting in burst pipes and no refund (2018-04-29), and a pricing dispute with aggressive owner follow-up (2015-01-31). These are not generic complaints and meaningfully reduce confidence in the professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: After removing confirmed duplicate reviews, the genuine unique review volume from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) is substantially lower than the raw count suggests. The WW Score is primarily driven by reviews from 2021–2024, which remain within a reasonable recency window but should be noted.
• OWNER RESPONSE BEHAVIOR: Multiple negative reviewers reference aggressive, threatening, or dismissive responses from the owner (Gary Bloch / Arie Glasman), including threats to contact employers and public accusations against reviewers. This is a professionalism flag that is not captured in the star ratings alone.
• MULTI-LOCATION OR MULTI-OPERATOR AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple distinct named plumbers (Arie Glasman, Gary Bloch, JD, Derek, Francisco, Josh, Chris, Omar, Brandon, etc.) and appear to span at least two distinct geographic markets (Houston, TX area and Los Angeles, CA area). It is possible these reviews represent more than one business operating under the Plumbco name, which would make the aggregate score less meaningful for any single location.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH data volume confidence due to the large number of reviews, but overall trustworthiness is meaningfully reduced by confirmed duplicate review patterns suggesting manipulation, credible negative reviews describing serious service failures and owner misconduct, and ambiguity about whether reviews represent a single business entity or multiple operators across different markets — consumers should weight recent, unique, and verified reviews more heavily than this aggregate score.

Johnson Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven by strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion. The company excels in experience and skill level (82.5), with numerous reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. Professionalism scores well at 78.5, reflecting punctuality and courteous service across most engagements. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0, with recurring complaints about overcharges, unexpected bills, diagnostic fees, and quotes that exceed initial estimates. Project completion is reliable at 79.0, though some customers report incomplete work or callbacks needed. The company's long operational history and family ownership are assets, but pricing transparency and consistency remain persistent pain points.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Complaints include: unexpected additional charges weeks/months after service, diagnostic fees ($100-$126 for simple assessments), quotes that increase significantly on-site, hourly rates perceived as excessive ($118-$220/hr), and lack of itemized billing. Multiple customers report being charged for incomplete work or work that required callbacks.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians (Ken, Rodney, Brad, Eric, Jason), others report incompetent work from unnamed technicians, suggesting quality varies significantly by individual. Some customers had to hire second plumbers to redo work.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) describe delayed invoicing (bills arriving 4+ months after service), surprise charges, and threats of collection action. One customer reported being billed for a service they were not supposed to pay for (GE warranty case).
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews mention promised callbacks that never occurred, estimates that were never provided, and poor communication from dispatch/office staff.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 1-star reviews (approximately 25 total) cluster around pricing disputes, incomplete work, rude staff behavior, and failure to honor commitments. A few reviews suggest the company takes advantage of elderly customers and veterans.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which contrasts sharply with 2020-2023 reviews that contain more critical feedback. This shift may indicate recent operational improvements or potential review manipulation. Recommend treating very recent reviews with moderate caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (no text, 5-star rating) and several generic single-word reviews ('Great!', 'Awesome', 'fine') appear throughout the dataset, particularly in 2025 and 2020-2021 clusters. This pattern is consistent with review padding, though not conclusive.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable for understanding Johnson Plumbing's overall performance, supported by 287 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant variability: the company delivers strong technical work and responsiveness but has persistent, well-documented pricing issues that materially impact customer satisfaction. Prospective customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm pricing before work begins, and request itemized invoices to mitigate financial risk. The recent surge in 5-star reviews warrants cautious interpretation.

Eagle Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, reflecting a company with genuine strengths but also notable inconsistencies. Professionalism scores 78.5 based on 89 mentions, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, and communication—though a significant subset reports rude phone staff, no-shows, and late arrivals. Pricing scores 77.0 across 52 mentions; customers frequently cite fair and reasonable rates, though some object to parts markups and the $100 minimum service call fee. Project Completion scores 75.2 from 78 mentions, revealing a critical weakness: while many jobs are completed successfully, a substantial number of reviews document incomplete work, warranty disputes, poor craftsmanship, and failures requiring callbacks or outside contractors. Experience scores 80.5 from 68 mentions, with strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability consistently praised, though some reviews cite incompetence or misdiagnosis. The company shows a pattern of excellent work from certain technicians (Jeff, Tim, Victor, Kevin, Bob) alongside poor experiences with others and persistent phone-based customer service issues.

• CRITICAL: Two major negative reviews (Sept 2024, 0.5 and 1.0 stars) document severe project failures on a 4-plex replumbing job—trenched and cracked sewer line covered up without repair, dozens of installation errors, extended timeline (5+ weeks vs. 1.5 weeks promised), sloppy workmanship, and incomplete follow-through. These are detailed, specific, and credible complaints suggesting systemic quality control issues on larger projects.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2013–2021) report no-shows, missed appointment windows, and lack of communication despite scheduled service times. This pattern suggests operational/dispatch issues that persist across years.
• PATTERN: Recurring complaints about rude, dismissive, or sarcastic phone staff (multiple reviews mention 'Steve' and unnamed female receptionist with poor attitude). This is a consistent weak point in customer experience.
• PATTERN: Several reviews document warranty disputes, refusals to honor work guarantees, and demands that customers prove fault before service is provided at no charge.
• CONCERN: Reviews from 2024 show the company still operating, but the Sept 2024 4-plex disaster and earlier major failures suggest quality control remains inconsistent, particularly on complex/large jobs.
• RECENCY: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review platform changes. However, the Sept 2024 negative reviews are detailed and credible.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. Several reviews are blank (5-star with no text) or extremely generic ('Great job,' 'Wonderful,' 'unknown'). However, the majority of reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied experiences, suggesting authentic feedback overall. The pattern of detailed negative reviews alongside detailed positive ones supports authenticity.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: the company demonstrates genuine competence and customer satisfaction in routine jobs and with specific technicians, but exhibits serious inconsistencies in project completion quality, phone-based customer service, and performance on complex/large projects. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on technician assignment and job complexity, and should be prepared for potential communication friction and warranty disputes. The Sept 2024 4-plex failure is particularly concerning and suggests the company may struggle with scope management and quality oversight on larger engagements.