Find Nearby Plumbers In Kansas City, Missouri

Snake 'n' Rooter demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional individual technicians, with many customers praising specific employees by name for their skill and friendliness. However, the company is significantly hampered by systemic issues in project completion (missed appointments, delayed callbacks, incomplete work requiring return visits) and pricing transparency (hidden charges, surcharges, billing disputes, and failure to honor warranties). While recent reviews (2018-2024) show improvement in responsiveness and professionalism, older reviews (2011-2017) reveal a troubling pattern of follow-up failures, unethical billing practices, and management unresponsiveness. The company's inconsistency—delivering excellent service in some cases while failing catastrophically in others—suggests operational or quality control problems.

• SYSTEMIC FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2015, 2017, 2018) document company failure to honor promised callbacks, refunds, or warranty work. One customer reported being hung up on 27+ times by dispatcher Linda.
• BILLING AND PRICING CONCERNS: Recurring complaints about undisclosed surcharges, add-on fees, inflated labor hours, and technicians lying about time spent on jobs. One customer was charged for work not completed; another was overcharged for a service that should have been free.
• WARRANTY AND GUARANTEE ISSUES: Multiple reviews indicate company does not stand behind warranties or guarantees. One customer waited 3+ months for promised $200 carpet damage reimbursement that never arrived.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Nick, Bryan, Daniel, Jonathan, Alex) and 1-star reviews describing the same company as 'incompetent' and 'scam artists.' This suggests individual technician quality varies dramatically.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Several reviews document management failure to respond to complaints, return calls, or resolve disputes. One customer reported no callback for over a month after filing complaint.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2011-2017 period; more recent reviews (2018-2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible company improvement or change in management. However, one serious negative review from August 2024 indicates problems persist.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK: Low risk detected. Reviews show genuine specificity (technician names, dates, detailed problem descriptions, varied outcomes). Negative reviews are detailed and credible, not generic.
• PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ISSUES: One 2024 review documents technician rudeness and refusal to provide shoe coverings; 2013 review documents customer service representative laughing and hanging up on senior customer; 2016 review documents technician questioning customer's emergency call at 3am.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism from individual technicians, it is significantly undermined by documented systemic failures in project follow-through, billing transparency, and management responsiveness. The score reflects a company with strong individual performers but weak operational infrastructure. Customers should expect good technical work but should be vigilant about written estimates, billing details, and warranty terms before engaging services.

United Heating, Cooling, and Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores reasonably well (72) with consistent mentions of polite, knowledgeable technicians and good communication, though punctuality issues appear in multiple reviews. Pricing is a significant weakness (48), with numerous complaints about overcharging, inflated parts markups, high service call fees, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion (65) is hampered by delayed callbacks, incomplete follow-through on repairs, and installation issues that required multiple visits. Experience (78) is the strongest dimension, with many reviews praising technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, particularly for diagnostic work. The company's performance is highly inconsistent across reviews spanning 2013–2023.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (10 mentions) cite excessive charges, parts markups (e.g., $196 for a $20.58 part), high service call fees ($143–$145), and aggressive upselling to elderly customers. This is a material weakness.
• PUNCTUALITY & SCHEDULING: At least 5 reviews document late arrivals, no-shows, or failure to honor appointment windows despite advance scheduling. One review waited until 9:15 PM with no contact.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Several reviews describe incomplete repairs, multiple callbacks required, lack of follow-up, and poor communication after initial service (e.g., 2015-08-11 review with 17 steps of unresolved issues).
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Reviews describe technicians breaking equipment during maintenance (2016-07-24), misdiagnosis of heat exchangers (2016-10-02, 2018-01-03), and failure to detect low refrigerant during inspection (2019-07-12).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2013–2018 (older than 1 year). Only 4 reviews are from 2021 or later. Recent data is limited.
• MIXED AUTHENTICITY: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the 5-star reviews from 2013–2018 are somewhat generic in praise. No obvious fake review pattern detected, but older reviews may not reflect current operations.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (35 reviews), the data is heavily weighted toward reviews older than 5 years, limiting current relevance. Pricing emerges as a consistent, material weakness across multiple independent reviews, but professionalism and experience show genuine strengths. The score reflects a company with skilled technicians but significant operational and pricing concerns that warrant caution.

Greg's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning nearly a decade. While older reviews (2008–2014) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, technical skill, and fair pricing, more recent reviews (2017–2022) reveal serious concerns: multiple customers report being quoted one price and charged 2.5× more, unprofessional conduct including vulgar language from staff, incomplete work with no follow-up, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary services. The professionalism score is dragged down by documented incidents of verbal abuse and poor customer service responses. Pricing confidence is limited by conflicting accounts—some call it reasonable, others report massive overcharges. Project completion shows mixed results with incomplete work and unresolved callbacks. Technical experience remains strong based on detailed positive feedback, but recent pricing and conduct issues suggest potential business practice changes.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reports of bait-and-switch pricing (quoted one amount, charged 2.5× more) in 2017 and 2022 reviews—suggests systemic billing practice issue.
• CRITICAL: Two separate incidents of aggressive/abusive behavior documented (profanity at customer on road, vulgar tirade in home during 2018)—raises serious professionalism and safety concerns.
• CRITICAL: Three reviews with minimal/no text content ('..', 'unknown', 'unknown') rated 5.0 with no substantive detail—suggests possible fake or placeholder reviews inflating ratings.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2008–2014). Recent reviews (2017–2022) are predominantly negative or mixed, indicating potential business deterioration.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2018 review documents unfinished cabinet repair with dismissive company response—suggests follow-through and accountability issues.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: 2018 review alleges unnecessary water heater and pressure valve replacement recommendations with inflated pricing—suggests potential predatory sales practices.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 14 usable reviews, the data is heavily skewed by age (older reviews very positive, recent reviews very negative), contains 3 suspicious placeholder reviews, and documents multiple serious allegations (pricing fraud, abusive conduct, incomplete work) that are not isolated incidents but appear in separate, independent accounts. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this volatility, but the trend toward negative recent reviews suggests current reliability is lower than the overall score indicates. Recommend requesting recent references and written quotes with binding price guarantees before engaging.

Dunco demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising responsive communication, knowledgeable technicians, and timely service. However, the company is severely hampered by aggressive pricing practices, particularly following its acquisition by Anthony Plumbing. Recent reviews (2024) reveal significant overcharging and upselling tactics that directly contradict the positive experiences documented in older reviews (2014–2019). Project completion shows mixed results, with emergency responsiveness praised but service contract fulfillment and callback accountability questioned. The sharp decline in customer satisfaction in recent months suggests operational or ownership changes have negatively impacted the business.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3–10 years old (2014–2019). Recent reviews from 2024 are predominantly negative (1–2 stars), indicating significant deterioration in service quality or pricing practices post-acquisition by Anthony Plumbing.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple recent reviews (2024) explicitly document overcharging and aggressive upselling. One customer was quoted $700 for a $385 job elsewhere; another paid $480 for a $25 parts job. This pattern suggests systemic pricing abuse.
• SERVICE CONTRACT ISSUES: Two reviews mention service contract problems—one customer with a contract could not get emergency service when needed; another customer disputes charges and was sent to collections after repeated ignored callback requests.
• ACQUISITION IMPACT: Three reviews explicitly reference the Dunco/Anthony Plumbing acquisition as the cause of deterioration. Customers report that Dunco's historical reputation for honesty and reliability has been compromised.
• SCHEDULING INFLEXIBILITY: One review documents refusal to accommodate customer work schedules and cancellation of pre-scheduled appointments, suggesting poor customer-centric practices.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal bias: the company's recent performance (2024) appears substantially worse than its historical performance (2014–2019), suggesting the score may not reflect current operational reality. Prospective customers should heavily weight the recent negative reviews and pricing complaints over older positive testimonials.

Alliance Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, unreturned calls, poor responsiveness, and dismissive office staff — despite a solid cluster of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and communication. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with several reviews describing incomplete work, repeated return visits, wrong parts, and outright abandonment of jobs — particularly through home warranty assignments. Pricing is relatively favorable, with multiple reviewers noting reasonable or below-estimate costs, though one major re-pipe job included unexpected add-on charges. Experience scores are moderate: skilled work is praised in several reviews, but technically challenged execution and unpreparedness (e.g., arriving without a snake, breaking pipes during a simple toilet repair) pull the score down meaningfully. Three blank 5-star reviews with no text content were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.

• THREE BLANK REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews dated 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11 (two instances) contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide zero usable evidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising 'Suzy' and plumber 'Joe' for a toilet replacement appears twice with nearly identical text (dates: 2018-06-11 and 2017-12-01). Similarly, the water heater burst review praising 'Andrew' appears twice (dates: 2018-06-11 and 2017-10-10). These duplicates were counted only once per dimension to avoid score inflation.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2016–2019. The most recent reviews (2021–2023) include a reckless driving complaint and an unresolved communication issue, suggesting possible decline in service quality in recent years.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews stem from home warranty assignments (HMS, Sears). These consistently describe no-shows, non-responsiveness, and incomplete work. This pattern is specific and credible, not isolated incidents.
• REVIEW DATE RANGE SPANS 17 YEARS (2006–2023): Older reviews (pre-2015) carry reduced weight in scoring. The business may have changed ownership, staff, or service scope over this period, limiting the reliability of aggregated scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the high mention counts across all dimensions provide statistical grounding, but the wide date range, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and a clear pattern of serious project completion failures in multiple independent accounts introduce meaningful uncertainty that prevents a high-confidence assessment.

Anthony Plumbing, Heating, Cooling & Electric presents a deeply split profile: individual technicians are frequently praised for professionalism, friendliness, and knowledge, but the company is overwhelmed by a very high volume of serious complaints about pricing, deceptive sales practices, and service failures. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of reviewers describing charges they considered grossly excessive — often 3x to 10x competitor quotes — for routine work such as capacitor replacements, wax ring resets, faucet installs, and cartridge replacements. Project completion is also significantly undermined by multiple accounts of no-shows, rescheduled appointments, incomplete work, and in several cases technicians allegedly causing new damage. Experience scores are pulled down by multiple credible accounts of misdiagnosis, failed leak detection, and technicians unable to identify problems that competitors resolved quickly and cheaply. The overall WW Score of 61.2 reflects a company with capable field staff but systemic issues in pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and sales ethics.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: A large block of reviews dated 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 appear to be exact duplicates of one another — identical review text, identical ratings, posted across two consecutive date clusters. These duplicated reviews were counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation. Approximately 19 reviews in the June 2025 cluster are duplicates of reviews already present in the dataset.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contained no text at all (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 2, but were counted in total reviews analyzed.
• PRICING CONCERNS — SYSTEMIC: An unusually high number of negative reviews (30+) specifically cite excessive pricing, with many customers providing direct competitor comparisons showing Anthony's charges at 3x–10x market rate for identical work. This is a strong and consistent signal, not isolated incidents.
• SALES TACTIC COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers allege high-pressure upselling, bait-and-switch practices, unnecessary replacement recommendations, and technicians on commission incentivizing overselling. Several reviewers mention elderly or vulnerable customers being targeted.
• ALLEGED DAMAGE CAUSED BY TECHNICIANS: Multiple reviewers credibly allege that Anthony technicians caused new damage during service visits (e.g., melted wiring during capacitor replacement, worsened leaks, AC not working after tune-up, drain not cleared properly). These are serious workmanship concerns.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different years report appointments being canceled same-day, rescheduled multiple times, or technicians arriving hours late with no communication. This is a recurring operational failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2021–2024. The positive reviews are heavily concentrated in the duplicate June 2025 cluster and the May 2025 batch, which are generic in nature. The negative reviews tend to be more specific and credible.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: Multiple long-term customers explicitly note a decline in service quality following a reported ownership/acquisition change, suggesting the current company may not reflect the historical reputation.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but readers should weight the negative reviews heavily as they are consistently more detailed, specific, and independently corroborated than the positive ones, and a significant portion of the 5-star reviews appear to be duplicates or content-free entries.