Find Nearby Plumbers In O'Fallon, Missouri

Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension across all five reviews, with a mixed but generally positive picture — four reviews praise friendliness and helpfulness, while one review explicitly calls out dishonesty and poor customer service, pulling the score down meaningfully. Pricing feedback is limited to two reviews: one very positive (a free part and significant savings) and one very negative (a disputed $300 restocking fee), resulting in a conservative mid-range score. Project completion is referenced in three reviews in terms of helping customers finish projects and going above and beyond, though no reviews describe a full contracted job from start to finish. Experience is noted positively in two reviews, particularly the instance where staff demonstrated technical knowledge to help a customer repair an obsolete fixture, but the sample is too small to score with confidence.

• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent review is from January 2021, and three of five reviews are from 2014–2017. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• Only 5 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated as indicative only.
• One review (1-star, April 2017) directly contradicts the positive reviews on customer service and honesty, indicating real variance in customer experience rather than consistent quality.
• This appears to be a plumbing supply store or distributor, not a contractor or plumber performing installation work. Reviews reflect retail/counter service interactions, not contracted project work. Dimensions like project completion are being interpreted loosely given this context.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 5 reviews, all of which are over 3 years old, with no recent data to reflect current business performance.

This contractor has a deeply split reputation. A large cluster of recent reviews (2024–2025) from what appears to be a Savannah/Georgia-area operation are overwhelmingly positive, praising named technicians like Felix, Ben, Daniel, Adam, and Conall for professionalism, speed, and technical skill. However, a significant and consistent body of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and appearing to reference a Truckee/Tahoe-area operation under the same or similar brand — describes serious issues including price gouging, hidden fees, rude and threatening dispatcher/owner behavior, incomplete work, and outright refusal to provide invoices or honor warranties. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers explicitly describing charges as 3–5x market rate, surprise fees, and non-transparent billing practices. Project completion is also dragged down by multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished while full payment was still collected. The experience dimension scores moderately well due to many positive accounts of skilled individual technicians, but is offset by several cases of incorrect repairs and misdiagnosis.

• SPLIT BRAND CONCERN: Reviews appear to originate from at least two geographically distinct operations (Savannah/Georgia area and Truckee/Lake Tahoe/Nevada area) operating under the same or similar 'Rooter Man' / 'Mr. Rooter' brand. Scores reflect the combined pool but the two operations have very different reputations.
• RECENCY SKEW: The majority of 5-star reviews are concentrated in 2024–2025 and reference a consistent set of named technicians (Felix, Ben, Daniel, Adam, Conall). This cluster may represent a different franchise or ownership than the older negative reviews.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2024–2025 positive reviews show some repetitive phrasing patterns (e.g., multiple reviews praising 'Felix' with nearly identical structure: 'professional, knowledgeable, explained everything, showed up on time'). Confidence in the positive cluster is slightly reduced as a result, though not all are flagged — many contain specific details.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege the owner/dispatcher (referred to as 'Ralph' in several reviews) engaged in yelling, threatening customers, hanging up on clients, charging for work not performed, refusing to provide invoices, and using intimidation tactics. These are not isolated complaints.
• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: At least 12 reviews explicitly describe pricing as deceptive, hidden, or 3–5x market rate. Several describe being charged upfront show-up fees without disclosure, then hit with large additional charges. One reviewer documented being charged $4,500 for incomplete work.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs being left unfinished while full payment was collected, including at least 3 reviews where a second company had to be hired to complete the same job.
• 27 reviews contained no text (blank or 'unknown') and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews about a washer drain pipe issue appear to be the same customer posting twice (dates 2015-02-26 and 2015-02-16). Only counted once in mention tallies.

The WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution — it reflects a highly polarized review set where a strong recent positive cluster from one apparent operation is significantly offset by a persistent and credible pattern of serious complaints about pricing abuse, incomplete work, and hostile customer service from what may be a related but distinct operation under the same brand name; consumers should research which specific franchise or location they are engaging before hiring.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence from a large volume of reviewers, with many customers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and explain their work clearly. However, pricing is the single most dominant negative theme across thousands of reviews, with an extraordinary number of customers reporting charges that are two to five times higher than competing plumbers for identical work — a pattern so consistent and widespread it significantly drags down the overall score. Project completion is mixed: while most jobs are finished correctly, a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty disputes, no-shows, and situations where problems were not resolved on the first visit. Experience scores are moderate-to-good, with many technicians demonstrating genuine expertise, but offset by recurring reports of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and technicians who appeared to lack knowledge for the specific job at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN — Extreme and consistent overpricing is the single most reported issue across this review set, spanning thousands of individual reviews across multiple years and franchise locations. Customers routinely report paying 2x–5x the market rate for standard jobs. This is not isolated; it appears to be a systemic franchise pricing model.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — A very large number of reviews describe aggressive or misleading upselling tactics, including recommending unnecessary full replacements instead of repairs, inflated estimates that drop significantly when the customer pushes back, and high-pressure sales pitches for service contracts.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY — Reviews span many different franchise locations operating under the Benjamin Franklin Plumbing brand. Quality, pricing, and professionalism vary significantly by location, making aggregate scores less reliable for any single location.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — A significant portion of reviews (estimated 15–20%) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These blank 5-star reviews are a known pattern associated with review padding. Confidence in the positive score distribution is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED — Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates (identical text, same or adjacent dates), suggesting possible review manipulation or system errors in the data set.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES — Dozens of reviews describe warranty disputes, failure to honor service agreements, no-call no-shows on scheduled return visits, and management that was unresponsive to complaints — indicating systemic customer service failures beyond individual technician performance.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION — Multiple reviews explicitly describe situations where elderly or vulnerable customers were quoted prices far above market rate, with some reviewers alleging deliberate targeting of people who lacked knowledge to push back.
• RECENCY NOTE — Reviews span from approximately 2004 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same pricing complaints and mixed service quality as older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted with caution because it aggregates multiple franchise locations under one brand, a significant volume of blank 5-star reviews artificially inflates the raw rating, and the pricing dimension — which is overwhelmingly negative — is the most reliable and consistent signal in the entire dataset.

Plumbing Experts presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. On the positive side, a large volume of customers praise specific technicians — particularly Ivan, Gabe, Kyle, Aaron, and Cliff — for punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and solid workmanship on completed jobs. However, a substantial and consistent stream of negative reviews documents serious concerns across all four dimensions: repeated no-shows and broken appointments undermine professionalism; numerous reviewers allege bait-and-switch pricing, hidden charges, and grossly inflated quotes that far exceed market rates; several jobs were left incomplete or failed within 24 hours with the company refusing to return under warranty; and multiple reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems or performing incorrect work. The pricing dimension is the weakest, with a high volume of explicit overcharging complaints including allegations of price-gouging elderly and vulnerable customers. The company appears to operate across multiple geographic markets under the same brand, which may explain some inconsistency, but the pattern of complaints is too widespread and specific to dismiss.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several reviews use near-identical phrasing ('Amazing service! Super fast response and quick one day job. Couldn't recommend Kyle and Jean anymore!!') appearing verbatim on two different dates (2025-05-10 and 2024-06-13), strongly suggesting duplicate or fabricated reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated 2018-06-11 contain no text or only single words ('Great'), with 5-star ratings. These appear to be padding reviews with no substantive content and should be treated as unreliable.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Multiple 5-star reviews are completely blank (no text) across several dates, which inflates the star average without providing verifiable evidence of quality.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: The negative review about Gabe's three failed tasks (dryer exhaust, toilet, shower bypass) appears verbatim three times across different dates (2021-01-31, 2021-02-06, 2021-06-10), suggesting the reviewer reposted or the platform duplicated it — counted once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: The water heater review ('We hired Plumbing Exerts to exchange a water heater...114 degrees F') appears verbatim on both 2024-06-09 and 2023-07-14 — counted once for scoring.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations allege bait-and-switch tactics — quoting low prices then dramatically raising them mid-job or upon arrival. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (2025-05-19, 1-star) alleges a technician stopped work mid-job and refused to continue unless the customer declared religious belief, only resuming after the customer complied and receiving a discount. This is a significant professionalism and ethical violation.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews allege the company threatened to place liens on customers' homes over disputed or allegedly already-paid invoices, including against elderly residents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews allege fraud including charging for work not performed, retaining deposits without delivering service (Aaron refund complaints spanning 2019), and charging a card twice without authorization.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: A recurring and consistent pattern of technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notification spans reviews from 2011 through 2025, indicating a systemic reliability problem.
• WARRANTY CONCERN: Multiple reviews document the company enforcing a 24-hour warranty on drain/clog work, which is unusually short and resulted in customers being charged again for the same recurring problem within days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, indicating the mixed quality pattern has not improved over time.
• MULTI-MARKET OPERATION: Reviews reference locations including Palm Beach County FL, Coachella Valley/Palm Springs CA, South Florida, Treasure Coast FL, and Bay Area CA, suggesting this may be a franchise or multiple businesses sharing a name, which complicates aggregate scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate/blank reviews inflating the positive count, documented patterns of bait-and-switch pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work, and the likelihood that this represents multiple distinct business operations under one brand name — prospective customers should seek technician-specific references and get all pricing in writing before work begins.

Dad's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise responsiveness, courteous technicians, and fair pricing — with multiple customers becoming repeat clients. However, a significant cluster of detailed negative reviews describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, failed inspections, unsupervised apprentices doing licensed work, unprepared technicians, no-shows, poor communication, and property damage left unresolved. The professionalism score is dragged down by repeated complaints about late arrivals without communication, rude callbacks, and staff showing up unprepared. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and at least one case of a snake left in a drain causing ongoing damage. Pricing received mixed signals — several reviewers praised affordability while others felt overcharged with hidden or disputed fees. The experience dimension reflects genuine skill in some cases but serious technical failures in others, including multiple failed inspections and incorrect installations.

• Several 5-star reviews contain no text or only a rating — these were excluded from dimension scoring and inflate the raw star average without providing usable evidence.
• A small number of generic 5-star reviews use vague superlatives with no specific details (e.g., 'Amazing, quality, reputable, trustworthy'), which may indicate low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• One negative reviewer explicitly alleges that some 5-star reviews were left by paid employees of the company — this cannot be verified but warrants caution.
• Multiple serious negative reviews are highly detailed and specific (failed inspections, property damage, lien filing, abandoned jobs), lending them strong credibility and significant downward weight.
• Review dates span from 2014 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both strong positives and at least one serious negative (snake left in drain, July 2024), suggesting quality inconsistency persists to the present day.
• The business appears to operate under multiple owner/technician names (Steve, Todd, Jacob, Keno, Anthony, Drake, Dave, Paul), which may indicate inconsistent service quality depending on which technician is dispatched.
• At least one review references the company going out of business, though other reviews post-date this claim — this may refer to a different entity or a temporary closure and should be investigated.

This WW Score is based on 68 reviews spanning 10 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the wide variance between glowing and severely negative reviews suggests highly inconsistent service quality, and prospective customers should weigh the detailed negative reviews heavily before hiring.

Drain Surgeons shows a deeply polarized review pattern with 24 five-star reviews (mostly recent, 2024-2025) and 16 one-star reviews (spanning 2013-2021). Professionalism scores 68 due to mixed punctuality and communication issues—while many recent reviews praise on-time arrival and courtesy, older reviews document no-shows, rudeness, and poor responsiveness. Project completion scores lowest at 58, with multiple documented failures including incomplete repairs, callbacks that weren't honored, and work that created new problems (mold, water damage). Pricing scores 65, with complaints of overcharging and lack of transparency offset by some reports of fair rates. Experience scores 72, reflecting genuine technical skill when work is completed, but undermined by diagnostic errors and refusal to troubleshoot. The stark recency divide suggests either significant operational changes or potential review manipulation.

• CRITICAL: Extreme recency bias detected. 24 of 25 five-star reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), while 16 of 17 one-star reviews are from 2013-2021 (3-11 years old). This pattern is highly suspicious and suggests either dramatic company transformation, review platform changes, or potential fake review activity.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple recent five-star reviews (Reviews 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) contain generic praise with minimal specificity, repetitive phrasing ('great experience,' 'highly recommend,' 'very friendly,' 'on time'), and lack concrete details about actual work performed. Reviews 2 and 4 are completely empty text with 5-star ratings.
• SERIOUS QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple one-star reviews document severe failures: incomplete work requiring callbacks (2006, 2016), misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary $175 expansion tank installation that failed (2019), false claims about customer behavior (2019), refusal to honor 30-day guarantee (2019), work that caused mold and water damage (2016), and overcharging by $1,000+ with lien threats (2017).
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAGS: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention incomplete work, failed repairs, or refusal to return for callbacks despite guarantees offered. One review documents a broken auger left in the line by Drain Surgeons technician.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews document poor phone responsiveness, rude staff, refusal to serve customers (claiming warranty company is the customer, not the homeowner), and management unavailability.
• WARRANTY COMPANY PATTERN: Disproportionate number of negative reviews involve home warranty referrals, suggesting systemic issues with how company handles warranty work or warranty customers.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. The extreme recency bias (24 five-star reviews in past 12 months vs. 16 one-star reviews from 3-11 years ago) combined with generic language and empty reviews in the recent batch raises serious concerns about review authenticity. The older one-star reviews are detailed, specific, and consistent in documenting real failures (incomplete work, misdiagnosis, poor customer service, overcharging). Until recent reviews can be independently verified, the WW Score of 62.8 likely underrepresents actual risk, as it weights recent (potentially fake) five-star reviews equally with older (detailed, credible) one-star reviews. Recommend requesting recent customer references and verifying warranty company feedback before hiring.