Find Nearby Plumbers In O'Fallon, Missouri

Above All Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning over a decade, with many customers praising individual technicians by name — particularly Ryan, Ernesto, Les, Rogelio, Colin, Junior, and Rob — for their skill, friendliness, and thoroughness. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 30+ one-star reviews) reveal recurring and serious concerns: appointment cancellations and no-shows, rude or dismissive office/phone staff, work that failed inspection or required correction, and post-job follow-through failures including ignored warranty claims and unresolved damage. Pricing drew mixed signals — many customers praised fair or competitive rates, while others reported bait-and-switch quoting, excessive charges for simple jobs, and a high minimum diagnostic fee that deterred potential customers. Project completion scores were tempered by multiple accounts of jobs left incomplete, failed inspections, and technicians unable to resolve the root cause of problems. The experience dimension scored moderately well, supported by many detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but offset by instances of incompetent diagnosis and code violations.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least three reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the 'Rick Brown / high end kitchen faucet' review appears three times with slightly different dates; the 'clogged bathroom sink / condo building' review appears twice with identical text). These duplicates have been counted once each for scoring purposes but inflate the total review count.
• RYAN REVIEW CLUSTER: Approximately 15-18 reviews all dated 2023-06-09 mention 'Ryan' specifically, with very similar structure and generic praise. While some contain specific details, the clustering of dates and repetitive format raises a moderate concern about coordinated or solicited reviews. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PLACEHOLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', 'already submitted', 'Great!', or similarly non-informative text. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2009 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 (roughly 60+ reviews) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a continuation of both strong praise and serious complaints, suggesting the mixed quality pattern is ongoing rather than historical.
• HARASSMENT ALLEGATION: One review (2020-08-18) alleges the owner Rick Brown called the reviewer twice while yelling and threatened to void their warranty in response to a negative review. A second update alleges contact via email constituting a third harassment incident. This is a serious flag regarding owner conduct.
• LGBTQ CONCERN: One review (2018-05-04) alleges the owners publicly expressed extreme anti-LGBTQ views on social media and directed personal attacks at the reviewer. This is noted as a reputational flag, though it falls outside the scored dimensions.
• PERMIT AND CODE VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews reference work that failed city inspection, work offered without permits, and a gas line job that required correction before passing inspection. This materially impacts the experience and project completion scores.
• GEOGRAPHIC AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference locations including Fremont CA, Yuma AZ, Mesquite TX/NV, Sherman TX, and the Bay Area. It is possible these reviews represent multiple businesses operating under the same or similar name ('Above All Plumbing' / 'All Above Plumbing'). Scores reflect the aggregate dataset as provided but users should verify which location applies to their needs.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (HIGH confidence by mention count) but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspicious same-day review cluster for one technician, a wide geographic spread suggesting possible multi-location data mixing, and a significant proportion of detailed negative reviews that reveal systemic issues with scheduling, office staff conduct, pricing transparency, and warranty follow-through.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism and responsiveness across most engagements, with 13 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, politeness, and work ethic. Pricing is fair and transparent based on 5 mentions. However, project completion is significantly undermined by two detailed negative reviews describing incomplete work, missed deadlines, poor follow-up after job acceptance, and quality issues (damaged materials, improper installation). Experience scores are mixed: most reviews praise quality workmanship, but two reviews reveal serious technical failures including electrical circuit damage and improper sink installation. The pattern suggests inconsistent execution rather than systemic incompetence.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 16 of 20 reviews are 5-star ratings with minimal specificity or detail. Many use generic praise ('great job,' 'very professional,' 'will hire again') without concrete examples. This clustering is suspicious and suggests possible review manipulation or incentivized positive feedback.
• CRITICAL QUALITY VARIANCE: Two detailed 1-star reviews describe serious failures (electrical circuit damage, incomplete countertop installation, damaged materials, improper sink mounting, poor follow-up). These contradict the overwhelmingly positive reviews and suggest either different service levels or fake positive reviews masking real problems.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: One review explicitly states work was abandoned mid-project (countertop sealer applied once, faucet/pipes not connected, job left unfinished after deadline missed). Another review describes electrical damage that left customer's oven non-functional.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: One detailed review states contractor is 'quick to respond till he gets the work but after that it is very difficult to get a response' — contradicting the 'responsive' praise in positive reviews.
• NO DATES PROVIDED: All reviews lack timestamps, preventing recency analysis and making it impossible to determine if negative reviews are recent or historical.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated score of 78.2 appears moderate, the extreme polarity between 16 generic 5-star reviews and 2 detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures suggests the positive reviews may not be authentic. The two negative reviews provide specific, verifiable claims of incomplete work and technical damage that are not contradicted by any positive review. Without dates and given the suspicious clustering of generic praise, the true reliability of this score is significantly lower than the confidence level suggests. Recommend requesting references and verifying recent project completion before hiring.

David demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with multiple customers praising punctuality and work quality. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by one detailed 2019 complaint documenting poor communication and prioritization (canceling an appointment to help a family member without proper notice). Pricing feedback is positive but limited to three mentions. The score reflects a mixed track record: excellent work quality and responsiveness when engaged, but a critical lapse in professional accountability that cannot be ignored. Most reviews are from 2017, limiting recency assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 8 reviews are from 2017 (6+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2019-2020. Current performance reliability cannot be fully assessed.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2019) documents serious professionalism issues—double-booking, poor communication, and prioritizing unpaid family work over a paying customer appointment. This is explicit evidence of unreliability.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2017-09-06 and 2017-09-01 use generic praise language ('amazing job', 'went great', 'fantastic') with minimal specific detail. While not conclusive, this warrants caution.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 3 mentions of pricing across 8 reviews. Confidence in pricing score is constrained.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 6+ years old), a documented professionalism failure that directly contradicts positive reviews, and potential generic review patterns. The WW Score reflects historical performance but does not reliably predict current service quality.

The Pipe Guys receive broadly positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, cleanliness, communication, and fair pricing — including one detailed account of a significantly lower estimate than a competitor. However, a substantive 1-star review from 2020 meaningfully drags the professionalism and project completion scores, describing rude communication from the owner, failure to secure a permit before starting work, and refusal to accept responsibility for the resulting city fine. This is not a minor complaint — it describes a regulatory failure and a breakdown in professional conduct. The majority of positive reviews are older than 3 years, with only two reviews from 2023, which limits confidence in the contractor's current performance. One review ('unknown') provided no usable data and was excluded from scoring.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 of 12 reviews are from the past 12–24 months (2023). The majority of reviews are from 2014–2020, meaning the score may not reflect current performance.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2020) describes the contractor starting work before a permit was filed, resulting in a city-imposed early start fee, followed by rude and deflective communication from the owner when the issue was raised. This is a regulatory and professionalism failure that is weighted heavily.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG: Several older 5-star reviews (2017, 2019) contain very brief, non-specific praise ('Excellent work. Very professional', 'They were excellent. They fixed the problem.') with no detail. These are treated as low-information data points and scored conservatively.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review with text 'unknown' (2016) was excluded from all dimension scoring as it contains no usable information.
• MILD FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Two reviews posted on the same date (2023-08-30) within 18 minutes of each other both describe the same job (whole house water filter installation) in similar positive terms. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution and both were treated as a single corroborating data point rather than two independent reviews for confidence weighting purposes.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low, most are significantly dated, one serious negative review introduces meaningful risk, and two same-day reviews for the same job reduce independent data confidence; prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

Access Plumbing shows a generally positive track record across professionalism and project completion, with multiple reviewers praising prompt arrival, courteous technicians, and jobs resolved in a single visit. However, two substantive negative reviews meaningfully drag down the pricing and professionalism dimensions — one detailing a price that exceeded the phone quote, a missing coupon discount, and the wrong tool for the job, and another describing a leaking installation, billing disputes, and a refusal to honor the advertised Angie's List discount without pushback. Project completion scores moderately well given that most jobs were finished, but the sewer-root review raises a legitimate concern about incomplete clearing. Experience scores reasonably well based on specific technical descriptions of skilled work, though the wrong-tool incident and the unresolved bathroom odor case temper that score. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two of four mentions being explicitly negative about overcharging or opaque billing.

• 7 of 21 reviews contain no usable textual content ('unknown', 'done', 'on w', 'see above', 'Went fine', 'good fixed the problem' with no detail) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no evidence for any dimension.
• The review dated 2010-11-18 ('Nothing to report. Don't call this company.') carries a 1-star rating but provides zero specifics. It was counted as a signal of dissatisfaction but could not be scored against any dimension due to lack of detail.
• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent review is from May 2017, and the majority cluster between 2010 and 2014. This data is significantly dated and may not reflect current business practices or quality.
• Several short, content-free 5-star reviews ('done', 'on w', 'see above', 'unknown') show a pattern of low-effort entries that may inflate the star rating without providing verifiable evidence of quality. Confidence has been adjusted accordingly.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present. The WW Score should be treated as a historical snapshot only.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high volume of content-free reviews, the complete absence of recent data (all reviews predate 2018), and two substantive negative reviews that reveal real pricing and workmanship concerns — consumers should seek current references before engaging this contractor.

All three reviews consistently praise the team's professionalism, communication, and customer care, which drives the strongest dimension score. Two reviews reference completed work with positive outcomes, supporting a moderate project completion score. Skill and technical knowledge are mentioned in two reviews, including one specific reference to a faucet repair handled competently. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. The overall WW Score is tempered by the very small review pool and the absence of any pricing data.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation; results should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language and no critical feedback, which is a mild flag for potential selection bias or unrepresentative sample.
• One review (2022-04-04) is older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date; recency weighting slightly reduces its influence.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation entirely.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with no pricing data and limited specificity, and should be considered a very early-stage signal rather than a reliable assessment of this contractor's overall performance.