Find Nearby Plumbers In Joplin, Missouri

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, and communication, with hundreds of reviews citing courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is a major and recurring pain point: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or outright predatory, with specific complaints ranging from $400+ for a single drain snake to $1,600+ for incomplete work, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are completed successfully and often same-day, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Technician skill and experience scores well overall, but is undermined by a notable subset of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, and technicians who appeared uncertain or unqualified for the task at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the single most negatively reviewed dimension. Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations explicitly cite charges of $400–$1,600+ for basic drain cleaning or simple repairs as excessive, with multiple reviewers stating they found the same work done for 50–75% less elsewhere.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition. Several reviews describe technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, failing to reconnect appliances, or leaving hazardous conditions.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and poor dispatcher communication appears across multiple years and locations. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (e.g., $3,000–$10,000 excavations) that were later found unnecessary by other plumbers who resolved the issue quickly and cheaply.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-02 share very similar short-form praise structures (e.g., 'Justin was awesome', 'Great Job Mo!', 'Justin saved our lives today!') with minimal detail. Several appear to be from the same franchise location and may reflect solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the high-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older reviews (2013–2020) show similar patterns of both praise and complaints, suggesting these issues are long-standing and not improving significantly over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIANCE: Reviews appear to span many different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the US. Scores reflect aggregate performance across all locations, which may mask significant variation between individual franchises.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (600+ reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the aggregate score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because it aggregates performance across many distinct franchise locations, and individual location quality varies dramatically — some franchises consistently earn 5-star praise while others generate repeated complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work.

The majority of reviews across this large dataset praise responsiveness, same-day or next-day service, friendly technicians, and solid workmanship — with many customers citing specific technicians by name (Mark, Levin, Hugo, Art, Justin, Edward, Cesar, Daniel, Manny, Vito, Arman, Devin, Jeff, and others) as knowledgeable and professional. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple technicians — describes serious failures including no-shows, broken appointments, work left incomplete, warranty promises not honored, damage caused and not remedied, and in several cases outright non-communication after payment. Pricing feedback is mixed: many customers praise fair and affordable rates, while several others report being quoted prices far above competitors or experiencing unexpected cost escalations mid-job. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with documented cases of abandoned work, repeated rescheduling, and failure to return after partial completion. The breadth of the review set (spanning 2010–2025) and the consistency of both praise and criticism across different technicians and time periods suggests these are genuine reviews reflecting real variability in service quality.

• Multiple 1-star reviews describe near-identical failure patterns: no-shows, missed appointments, warranty not honored, and non-communication after payment — these appear across different technicians and years, suggesting systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Several 5-star reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-24 and 2024-11-10) appear to describe the same negative experience with technician 'Art' in nearly identical language, suggesting possible duplicate submission by the same customer — scored as one incident.
• A small number of 5-star reviews use generic, non-specific praise with no job details (e.g., 'Great company. Honest, hard workers. Can't go wrong with MVP') — these were counted for overall sentiment but given reduced weight in dimension scoring.
• One review (dated 2024-09-19) alleges a mid-job price escalation from $9,500 to $17,800 with demands for upfront payment — this is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• One review (dated 2020-04-09) alleges MVP caused property damage during a re-pipe and then refused to pay for repairs over a period of months — this is a serious project completion and integrity flag.
• One review (dated 2019-08-16) claims a lawsuit was filed and won against MVP for property damage, with no payment received after over a year — unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• Reviews span from 2010 to 2025. Reviews older than 24 months were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a predominantly positive pattern, but negative reviews in this window still exist.
• This dataset appears to aggregate reviews from multiple business entities operating under similar or related names (MVP Plumbing, New Flow Plumbing, MVP Custom Plumbing) across multiple geographic regions. Scores reflect the combined dataset as submitted.

With 290 reviews analyzed and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, the WW Score of 72.1 is statistically reliable as a representation of this contractor's overall service quality, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring pattern of no-shows, incomplete work, and unresolved damage claims documented in the negative reviews before hiring.

The majority of reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including a no-call no-show, rude behavior by a technician named Scott, an appointment cancellation without notice, and a plumber who insulted a customer's wife — meaningfully depresses the professionalism dimension. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers cite fair or below-market rates, but several explicitly describe being overcharged, quoted worst-case-scenario prices and billed in full, or charged for unnecessary work, pulling the pricing score down. Project completion is similarly split — most jobs are described as completed well, but there are notable failures including a job left out of code, a repair that failed the next day with no warranty honored, a no-show after payment, and a leak that recurred due to improper sealing. Experience scores moderately well given many reviewers cite knowledgeable, skilled technicians, but is tempered by reviews describing poor workmanship, incorrect installations, and dishonest diagnoses.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'On time, communicative, super friendly, good job done quickly' (5-star) appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05 with identical text. The review 'Plumb perfect Replaced our maniblock...' appears on both 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03 with identical text. The review 'Great job at a very reasonable price...' appears on both 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03 with identical text. These three pairs of duplicates are likely fake or artificially inflated reviews and have been treated as single reviews for scoring purposes.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Plumb Crazy LLC', 'Plumb Perfect', and reference technicians across very different geographic markets (Utah, Virginia/Maryland, California/Nevada). This review set likely aggregates reviews for multiple separate businesses operating under similar names, which significantly undermines the reliability of any composite score.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: A substantial portion of reviews date from 2009 to 2019, with the most recent cluster from 2025. Older reviews may not reflect current ownership, staffing, or service quality. The negative reviews from 2021–2024 (rude owner Scott, no-show, rude behavior in home) are more recent and carry elevated weight.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews describe serious issues — a plumber refusing to wear a mask and being antagonistic, a technician insulting a customer's wife, a job installed out of city code, refusal to honor warranty on defective work, and a no-call no-show. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years and apparent business entities.
• SCORE INFLATION RISK: The large volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great service.', 'It went well.', 'unknown', blank reviews) with no substantive detail inflates the apparent rating. These reviews were excluded from dimension scoring but contribute to the raw review count.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its trustworthiness as a guide to a single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names, the presence of confirmed duplicate (likely fake) reviews, and a recurring pattern of serious negative experiences that should not be dismissed.

Mitchell Plumbing consistently receives strong praise for professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, courteous attitudes, and clear communication across 8 usable reviews. Pricing is mentioned favorably in 3 reviews, with terms like 'very fair' and 'very reasonable,' supporting a solid but moderately confident pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting timely work, follow-through on callbacks, and jobs finished without issue. Experience is backed by specific mentions of technical problem-solving — most notably diagnosing a water heater issue and reactivating a dormant water softener — though this dimension rests on fewer mentions. Overall, the picture is consistently positive but the review base is small and heavily dated.

• 2 of 10 reviews contain only 'unknown' as review text and provide no usable data — these were excluded from scoring.
• All reviews are older than 7 years (most recent: February 2017, oldest: 2011) — recency is a significant concern and the score may not reflect current service quality.
• The review set is small (10 total, 8 usable), which limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated with caution.
• All ratings are 5-star with no negative or mixed reviews, which may indicate selection bias or an incomplete review sample rather than confirmed fake reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small and entirely outdated review set — no reviews exist from the past several years — meaning current service quality cannot be confidently assessed from this data alone.

Gene's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous service across multiple reviews. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished promptly and follow-through on callbacks. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident from detailed positive feedback. However, pricing integrity was compromised in one review where the contractor charged more than promised, creating trust concerns. The score is tempered by significant data quality issues: 3 reviews are unusable (two marked 'unknown', one blank), and most reviews are 8+ years old with only one from the past decade, limiting current relevance.

• Data quality concern: 3 of 15 reviews are unusable (marked 'unknown' or blank '.')
• Recency issue: 13 of 15 reviews are older than 8 years (2006-2013); only 2 reviews from 2016-2017; no reviews from past 6 years
• Pricing integrity red flag: One explicit complaint about overcharging relative to verbal estimate, contradicting otherwise positive pricing feedback
• Potential fake review pattern: Multiple reviews from 2012-2013 use nearly identical phrasing ('They are great', 'reasonable', 'use them all the time') with suspiciously generic praise and no specific details
• Limited recent performance data makes current reliability assessment uncertain

This score should be treated with caution due to severely outdated review data (87% older than 8 years) and 3 unusable reviews reducing sample size. The pricing integrity concern and potential fake review patterns further reduce confidence. Current contractor performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.

Dolphin Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, friendliness, and communication across 9 reviews. Project completion is solid with 8 mentions of timely work and follow-through, though one 2019 complaint about unmet expectations slightly tempers this score. Technical expertise is evident across 5 reviews highlighting knowledgeable problem-solving. Pricing is the weakest dimension with only 4 mentions; while most describe fair value, one significant 2019 dispute over a $460 charge (settled at $300) for a $120 quoted job substantially reduces confidence in pricing transparency. The company shows strong recent performance (2022-2023) but older reviews (2004-2006) and a very old non-response complaint (2006) introduce some historical inconsistency.

• Pricing dimension has conflicting signals: most reviews praise fair pricing, but one detailed 2019 complaint alleges significant quote-to-invoice discrepancy ($120 quoted, $460 charged, settled at $300). This suggests potential pricing transparency issues despite generally positive sentiment.
• Review age distribution is highly skewed: 3 reviews from 2022-2023 (recent), 4 reviews from 2004-2006 (18+ years old), 2 from 2018-2019, 1 from 2016, 1 from 2021. Older reviews may not reflect current business practices.
• One review from 2006 states 'They never returned my call' with no context—isolated but suggests occasional communication lapses.
• Several very old reviews (2004-2005) use all-caps formatting and lack specific detail, though this may reflect platform conventions of that era rather than fake reviews.
• Mention of multiple technicians (James, Joe, Mike) across reviews suggests either staff turnover or multiple team members; consistency of service quality across team is unclear.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews (2022-2023) are uniformly strong and professionalism/completion are well-supported, the pricing dimension is undermined by one credible dispute and limited mention count. The heavy weighting of very old reviews (2004-2006) and the 18-year gap in data continuity reduce overall reliability; current performance may differ from historical patterns.