Find Nearby Plumbers In Lee's Summit, Missouri

Leon and All in One Maintenance earn strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of reviews praising punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication. Project completion scores are high but modestly penalized by a handful of notable negative experiences: one no-call/no-show, one reviewer who waited weeks without a callback, one instance of a closet rod falling after installation requiring a redo, and one reviewer who flagged inadequate electrical skill leading to wasted time and money. Pricing is consistently described as fair, competitive, and transparent, with one reviewer noting a billing dispute that was partially resolved and another flagging the inconvenience of cash-only payment. Experience and workmanship are praised extensively across a wide variety of tasks, though the electrical competency complaint and the closet rod failure introduce a small but real signal of inconsistency. The score reflects a genuinely strong contractor with a well-documented track record, tempered appropriately by credible negative outliers.

• One confirmed no-call/no-show reported (1-star review, 2018-01-27): 'Made an appointment to come to my house, my wife and son waited around all morning and Leon no called/no showed.' This is a serious professionalism failure and was factored into scoring.
• One reviewer (2017-08-23) reported being unable to reach Leon for over two weeks after initial contact, suggesting responsiveness issues during busy periods.
• One reviewer (2019-08-07) reported never receiving a call back or quote despite needing urgent help.
• One reviewer (2017-09-13) reported Leon arrived unprepared for electrical work despite it being detailed in advance, and the reviewer had to redo a light switch Leon attempted. This is a credible skill/preparation concern.
• One reviewer (2019-03-01) reported a $300+ bill for minor work including unauthorized hardware store trips billed to the client, and a closet rod that subsequently fell and had to be redone by another contractor. Bill was halved after complaint but the workmanship failure is noted.
• One edited review (2016-09-08, edited in 2018) noted Leon became unresponsive in 2018, raising a flag about consistency of availability over time.
• One review (2022-05-07) is a 4-star update with no usable dimensional data — reviewer had a family emergency and used another provider. Minimal scoring impact.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with highly positive language. While this pattern could suggest fake reviews, the specificity of job details (named tasks, named team members, specific problem-solving scenarios, COVID mask mentions, named locations) across dozens of reviews strongly suggests authenticity. No fake review flag is raised, but the near-universal positivity is noted.
• A significant portion of reviews predate 2022 (roughly 60+ of 80 reviews). Recency weighting applied: the 6 reviews from 2023–2024 are all positive and consistent with historical patterns, suggesting continued quality, but the sample of recent reviews is smaller.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and largely authentic review set spanning approximately 8 years, and carries HIGH overall confidence — however, prospective customers should note credible isolated incidents of no-shows, unresponsiveness, and at least one workmanship failure, which prevent a top-tier score despite the contractor's otherwise strong reputation.

Andy/Alan demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous demeanor, and responsive communication across 26 mentions. Project completion is reliable with 24 mentions showing timely work, follow-through on callbacks, and thorough job finishing. Experience is well-documented across 18 mentions with skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and honest assessment of scope limitations. Pricing receives solid marks from 9 mentions emphasizing fair value and reasonable costs, though fewer explicit pricing discussions limit confidence in this dimension. The contractor shows integrity by declining work outside expertise and adjusting fees when appropriate.

• Recency concern: 17 of 40 reviews (42.5%) are from 2012-2014, over 10 years old. Only 8 reviews have recent dates (2025) or no date provided. Recent reviews are uniformly positive with no negative feedback, which is atypical.
• One review (2012-12-27, 1-star) reports non-responsiveness and callback failure, contradicting the otherwise universal praise. This isolated negative should be weighted appropriately.
• Four reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2016-05-18, 2015-06-25, 2015-04-10, 2014-12-19). These are unusable and excluded from scoring.
• One review (2014-05-01, 3-star) explicitly states dissatisfaction with timeline, cost, and communication ('did not regularly accept my willing ideas'). This is the only substantive negative feedback and suggests occasional issues with client collaboration.
• Multiple name variations (Andy, Andrew, Alan, Allen, Handy Andy) appear across reviews, suggesting either nickname usage or potential data quality issues. Assuming these refer to the same contractor.
• Older reviews (pre-2015) show generic praise patterns with limited specificity in some cases, though recent reviews provide more detailed descriptions of work performed.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable for recent work (2025 reviews show consistent quality), but overall confidence is tempered by heavy weighting of reviews older than 10 years and the presence of one documented callback failure and one cost/communication complaint that suggest occasional service gaps. The score reflects strong baseline professionalism and competence, but users should note that recent performance appears more consistently positive than historical data.

Diamond Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across 89 mentions, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, communication, and respectful behavior. Project completion is solid (81.5/100) across 52 mentions, though a critical 1-star review from 2021 regarding incomplete excavation work (unfilled hole under bathtub) and a few no-show incidents temper this score. Experience/workmanship scores well (85.0/100) with 48 mentions highlighting technical skill and quality work. Pricing presents the weakest dimension (76.0/100) with only 18 mentions—while many reviews praise fair pricing, several negative reviews cite unexpectedly high costs, aggressive upselling tactics, and pricing significantly above competitors, creating meaningful concern about value consistency.

• CRITICAL: One severe project completion failure (2021-09-07, 1-star): excavation work left a hollow void under bathtub after digging; company refused to complete backfill despite contract language, creating structural hazard. This is a material breach of contract and safety issue.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2020-12-10, 2-star; undated review, 1-star) report pricing substantially above market—one water heater install quoted at $1,200 when competitors were significantly lower. Another review warns of aggressive upselling and payment plans for simple repairs.
• SERVICE RELIABILITY: Two 1-star reviews (2021-04-09, 2014-08-25) document no-shows and failure to return calls, leaving customers waiting days without communication.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15 reviews (mostly dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-06-02) are extremely brief, generic, or empty (blank text with 5-star rating). Examples: empty review text, single-word reviews ('Toilet repair'), minimal detail. This cluster of suspiciously generic praise with no specifics raises authenticity concerns, though the majority of reviews contain substantive detail.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, past 6 months) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2020-2021) contain more critical feedback and specificity. Recent data may be skewed toward positive sentiment.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: One review (undated, 1-star) alleges the company attempted to exploit an insurance inspection request by refusing to provide the requested inspection and instead pushing a full pipe replacement upsell.

This WW Score of 82.1 is moderately reliable but should be interpreted with caution: professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by high-mention counts, but pricing reliability is limited (only 18 mentions) and shows material inconsistency. The cluster of generic/empty recent reviews and documented service failures (no-shows, incomplete work, upselling) suggest the company's consistency has declined or quality varies significantly by technician. Customers should verify pricing independently and confirm service completion terms in writing before engaging.

Jeff and Allen's Service Company receive consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight promptness, courtesy, and clear communication. Pricing is noted favorably by multiple reviewers who describe fees as nominal, affordable, and reasonable with no mention of hidden charges. Project completion scores are solid, with most reviewers reporting jobs finished quickly and thoroughly, though one significant negative review describes a no-show after a scheduled appointment with no call, which meaningfully drags the completion score down. Experience is affirmed by several reviewers who note technical knowledge, correct diagnosis of issues, and quality workmanship. The single no-show incident is the most serious data point in the entire review set and cannot be dismissed.

• One review (2021-03-24, 0.5 stars) explicitly states Jeff scheduled an appointment after a quote and never showed up or called — this is a serious project completion failure and was weighted heavily against that dimension.
• All reviews are dated between November 2020 and August 2021 — all reviews are older than 3 years. No recent reviews are available, which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.
• Several reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Jeff was great!', 'Great service.', 'service was great', 'Excellent service. I would highly recommend.') with no specific details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild fake review awareness caution.
• One review (2020-11-16) references a long personal working history with Jeff, which may indicate a personal or professional relationship that could bias the rating upward.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present. This score should be treated as a historical snapshot only.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with reasonable dimension coverage, but all reviews are over 3 years old and several lack specific detail, meaning this score reflects past performance only and should be treated with moderate caution when assessing current service quality.

This contractor demonstrates solid performance across all measured dimensions based on limited but consistent evidence. Professionalism is supported by punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and cleanliness across three reviews. Project completion is evidenced by timely delivery and follow-through on callbacks in three reviews. Experience is reflected in successful completion of complex work (AC motor replacement, electrical repair, roof sealing, bathroom remodeling, floor repair) across three reviews. Pricing feedback is mixed: one review explicitly states 'very good price' while another notes 'a little on the expensive side,' resulting in a moderate score. The overall WW Score of 87.2 reflects competent, reliable work with professional conduct, though the small sample size and age of most reviews limit confidence.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five reviews are older than 5 years (2012–2015), with only one from 2018. Most data predates the past 12 months significantly, limiting relevance to current service quality.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 total reviews analyzed; only 4 contain usable data. Scores are based on very limited mention counts (2–3 per dimension), which constrains confidence.
• GENERIC REVIEW: One review contains only 'unknown' as text with a 5-star rating, providing no actionable data and suggesting possible data quality issues.
• PRICING CONTRADICTION: Two reviews provide conflicting price assessments ('very good price' vs. 'a little on the expensive side'), making pricing assessment uncertain.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 usable reviews), age of most data (majority from 2012–2015), and low mention counts per dimension. The score reflects historical performance but may not accurately represent current service delivery. Additional recent reviews are strongly recommended before making a high-confidence decision.

Better Service Inc. earns strong marks for professionalism, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, friendly communication, and courteous technicians across both office staff and field personnel. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting fair or below-market rates and no upselling. However, project completion is the weakest dimension: several reviews describe abandoned work, a unit installed that never functioned, repeated no-shows, and a technician who left without resolving the issue — these are serious, specific complaints that meaningfully drag the score down. Technical experience is generally solid based on reviewer accounts, but is undermined by at least two credible reports of poor workmanship including undersized ductwork and improperly wired thermostats. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths in customer interaction but inconsistent follow-through and quality control on more complex jobs.

• Three reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (two 5-star, one 4-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One 1-star review is from 2013 and another from 2019. These are significantly older than the rest of the dataset and were given reduced weight in scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Lloyd did a great job!', 'Very Professional and thorough!', 'Excellent Service!!') with no specific detail. While not conclusively fake, these were treated as low-information and given minimal weight.
• The all-caps review praising multiple named staff members across 6+ years reads as potentially enthusiastic but genuine given its specificity; no fake review flag applied, but noted.
• A cluster of reviews share the same date (2024-06-09) across a wide range of ratings and content styles, which may reflect a data import artifact rather than actual same-day posting. This does not appear to indicate fake reviews but is noted for transparency.
• The negative reviews are highly specific and credible — describing no-shows, unfinished installs, and a technician who could not read a thermostat. These were weighted heavily in project completion and experience scoring.

This WW Score is based on 45 reviews with usable content spanning 2013 to 2025, with the majority from 2023 onward, giving the score reasonable reliability — however, the presence of credible and specific negative reviews alongside vague positive ones means the score should be interpreted as a moderate-confidence indicator of inconsistent but generally acceptable service quality.