Find Nearby Plumbers In Kansas City, Missouri

Smedley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and technician demeanor across multiple reviews. Technical experience is solid, with customers noting knowledgeable problem-solving and quality workmanship. However, project completion reliability is undermined by one severe 1-star review alleging corner-cutting and failure to address errors despite repeated callbacks, requiring customer to hire another contractor. Pricing feedback is minimal and mixed—one review praises fair pricing while another indicates unexpected cost overruns. The significant negative review from December 2023 substantially impacts overall trustworthiness despite predominantly positive older reviews.

• One highly negative review (1-star, Dec 2023) directly contradicts positive reviews, alleging poor workmanship, corner-cutting, and failure to honor callbacks. This suggests inconsistent service quality or potential reliability issues.
• Most positive reviews are older (2021-2022), with the most recent detailed review being from August 2024 (5-star but brief). Recency of negative feedback (Dec 2023) is concerning.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions—one positive, one negative with cost overruns. Insufficient data to establish fair pricing confidence.
• No explicit mention of transparent quotes or hidden charges in any review. Pricing assessment is limited.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are reasonably supported, the stark contradiction between glowing reviews and one detailed complaint about unresolved errors and cost overruns raises questions about consistency. The WW Score of 78.3 reflects this tension; it is not a fully trustworthy indicator without additional recent reviews to clarify whether the negative experience was an outlier or a pattern.

Joe Lillis Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and efficient work across 16 reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable (6 mentions), though one recent 2023 review criticized a competitor's $1,000 quote as gouging. Project completion shows mixed results: most jobs are completed quickly and thoroughly, but 3 reviews explicitly mention unresolved issues or no-shows, creating significant concern. Technical skill and knowledge are well-documented across 9 reviews. The overall score is tempered by completion failures and the recency of a critical no-show incident in December 2023.

• CRITICAL: No-show incident on 2023-12-06 with zero communication—most recent negative review and represents serious reliability failure
• Project completion dimension weakened by 3 explicit failures: no-show (2023), unresolved issue (2011), and non-response to callback (2005)
• Multiple reviews from 2004-2006 are 18+ years old; recency bias favors older 5-star reviews; only 2 reviews from past 3 years, one of which is highly negative
• One review (2016-02-18) contains only a period with 5-star rating—appears incomplete or placeholder data
• Several reviews use all-caps formatting (2005 and earlier), suggesting possible data entry artifacts but content is substantive
• Positive reviews show some generic phrasing ('above and beyond,' 'best at what he does') but are supported by specific examples, reducing fake review concern

This score should be treated with caution due to the recent critical no-show failure (Dec 2023), mixed project completion history, and heavy weighting toward older reviews (most data from 2004-2022). The MODERATE overall confidence reflects insufficient recent data and documented completion failures that contradict the strong professionalism ratings.

Midwest Plumbing has a generally positive track record across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, professionalism, and fair pricing spanning many years of reviews. Professionalism scores well overall but is tempered by one explicit complaint about a technician arriving in an unacceptably dirty state and a separate serious complaint about a failed installation where the company initially refused to accept responsibility, only resolving the issue after threats of legal action. Project completion is similarly solid but is meaningfully dragged down by that same 2005 complaint involving repeated sewage overflows caused by poor workmanship and a prolonged refusal to fix the root cause. Pricing and experience dimensions are supported by multiple positive mentions including coming in under estimate, competitive pricing, and skilled problem-solving such as avoiding a costly $15K sewer replacement by correctly diagnosing roots rather than a break. The score is moderated by the age of the review pool — the majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). The majority of reviews span 2003–2020, with a heavy cluster in 2009–2017. The WW Score reflects a long historical average and may not represent current service quality.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: The reviews dated 2016-01-22 ('unknown') and 2014-06-05 ('..') were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no actionable information.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT FLAG: The 2005 review describes a defective installation causing repeated sewage overflows, initial denial of responsibility, and resolution only after threats of legal action. This is a significant workmanship and accountability failure that meaningfully impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• MINOR PROFESSIONALISM COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2013-10-15) explicitly noted a technician arrived in an extremely dirty and unprofessional appearance, which is a direct negative mention against professionalism.
• PAYMENT TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One reviewer (2012-10-31) was not informed prior to job completion that the company does not accept credit cards, which is a transparency/communication failure relevant to both professionalism and pricing.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, rating, and date. Negative reviews are present. No suspicious identical phrasing was identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the dimension scores are each supported by multiple mentions giving HIGH confidence per dimension, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over 5 years old, only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months, and at least one serious unresolved workmanship complaint exists in the historical record.

Lexington Plumbing shows strong technical capability and generally responsive service, but is significantly hampered by pricing concerns and inconsistent project completion standards. Multiple reviews praise their speed, skill, and friendliness, yet serious complaints about overcharging, warranty refusal, and inadequate cleanup reveal a pattern of cutting corners on follow-through. The company excels at initial diagnosis and repair work but struggles with transparency, fair pricing, and accountability when issues arise post-completion.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Two explicit complaints about overcharging ($400 diagnostic fee for simple hose reconnection; second opinion indicated overpricing on sewer work). This suggests potential predatory pricing practices.
• WARRANTY/ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: Customer reported sewer smell persisted after Lexington's work; when offered second opinion showing improper work, Lexington refused to inspect or warranty. This is a serious professionalism and completion failure.
• PROJECT CLEANUP FAILURE: 2015 review details incomplete cleanup (brush, roots, clay pipe debris left on property). While older, this indicates systemic lack of attention to job completion standards.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2021 (3-5 years old). Most recent reviews (2024, 2022, 2020) show mixed-to-negative sentiment. Recent data suggests declining service quality.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews from 2019-2020 contain vague, repetitive language ('top notch organization,' 'highly recommended') with minimal specific detail. These lack the concrete evidence of the more critical reviews and should be weighted conservatively.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical competence appears genuine, serious unresolved complaints about pricing transparency and warranty accountability suggest the company's overall reliability is declining. The WW Score of 73.2 reflects strong execution on initial work but significant gaps in customer protection and follow-through.

Vielhauer Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 24 mentions. Technical skill and workmanship are solid (85/100 across 15 mentions). However, pricing is a significant weakness (58/100 across 18 mentions), with recurring complaints about hidden trip charges, material markups, mileage fees, and lack of transparent pricing disclosure. Project completion is reliable (80/100 across 16 mentions), though some callbacks and warranty issues are noted. The company excels in attitude and skill but undermines customer satisfaction through aggressive fee structures and poor pricing transparency.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2016, 2021, 2013) report being quoted one price verbally but charged significantly higher amounts due to undisclosed trip charges, mileage fees, and material markups. This pattern suggests systemic pricing opacity.
• WORKMANSHIP QUALITY CONCERNS: Three detailed negative reviews (2022 water heater cap, 2022 toilet replacement, 2012 waterline leak) describe poor diagnostics, incomplete solutions, and lack of accountability for mistakes. These are specific technical failures, not just pricing complaints.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text or only generic praise ('unknown', blank text fields), suggesting possible review manipulation or placeholder entries. These reduce data reliability.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) are overwhelmingly positive 5-star ratings with generic language ('love this company', 'family owned'). Older reviews (2010-2022) show more balanced feedback with specific details. Recent reviews lack specificity compared to historical pattern.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2021-2025 show suspicious clustering of 5-star ratings with minimal detail ('Their professional...I mean that says it all!', 'Love them', 'Fantastic'). Combined with empty review fields, this suggests possible review padding.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews document rude or dismissive customer service when customers questioned bills (2021, 2018), suggesting poor complaint resolution processes.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same owner (Wally Vielhauer) receives both glowing praise and severe criticism for similar service calls, indicating either inconsistent execution or selective service quality.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine professionalism and technical competence, the pricing dimension is severely compromised by systematic lack of transparency and multiple documented billing disputes. The recent surge in generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail, combined with empty review fields, raises concerns about review authenticity. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company with solid execution but problematic business practices around pricing disclosure and customer communication during disputes. Customers should expect good workmanship but should explicitly request itemized pricing and trip/mileage fees in writing before service.

Eric's plumbing service shows strong technical skill and responsiveness when jobs are completed, but significant reliability issues undermine overall trustworthiness. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple no-shows, late arrivals, and poor follow-up communication (5 explicit mentions of scheduling/communication failures). Pricing appears fair when transparent, but one customer felt overcharged for quick work. Project completion is inconsistent—some jobs are finished same-day with excellence, while others involve incomplete callbacks and unfinished diagnostics. Experience and workmanship quality are consistently praised when Eric is present and engaged.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and late-arrival incidents (at least 5 reviews mention scheduling failures, no-shows, or communication breakdowns). This is a pattern, not isolated.
• INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews (mostly undated) contrast sharply with recent dated reviews showing serious reliability problems. The 2024-07-14 and undated negative reviews suggest ongoing issues.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Many positive reviews lack specifics and use generic praise ('great job', 'professional', 'would hire again'). However, negative reviews are highly detailed and credible, so overall dataset appears authentic but heavily skewed by positive generic reviews without dates.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews have no date; the two dated reviews from 2025-06-05 and 2024-07-14 show mixed results. Undated reviews cannot be weighted for recency, creating uncertainty about current performance.
• PRICING CONCERN: One customer explicitly felt cheated despite quality work, suggesting potential hourly rate misalignment or lack of transparency on quick jobs.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical competence is evident, the pattern of no-shows, late arrivals, and communication failures across multiple reviews indicates serious operational reliability issues that directly contradict the high volume of generic positive reviews. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects this tension—Eric delivers quality work when present, but cannot be consistently relied upon to show up or follow through on commitments.