Find Nearby Plumbers In Springfield, Missouri

Pearson Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by repeated complaints about no-shows, missed appointments, failure to communicate delays, rude technicians, and one instance of a plumber behaving unprofessionally on-site. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing overcharging, lack of upfront estimates, billing for unrendered services, and one quote described as four times higher than competitors — though a handful of positive reviews praise fair or below-estimate pricing. Project completion is inconsistent: several reviews praise fast, thorough work, but others describe jobs left incomplete, problems not diagnosed, and follow-through failures including one case escalated to the Texas state plumbing board. Experience scores moderately, with positive reviews citing skilled diagnosis and complex jobs handled well (slab leaks, tankless heaters, sewer tie-ins), but offset by reviews describing failed diagnoses and poor-quality parts. The overall picture is a contractor with capable plumbers on staff but serious and recurring operational and customer service problems.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same date — including two identical 1-star billing complaints (2023-06-10), two identical 1-star appointment complaints (2019-06-11), two identical 5-star generic praise reviews (2021-06-10), two identical 5-star 'Best plumbers out there!' reviews (2020-06-10), three identical 5-star reviews about a toilet installation (2018-06-01), two identical 5-star Bryan sprinkler reviews (2018-06-11), two identical 5-star 'Save yourself some trouble' reviews (2018-06-11), and two identical 5-star 'If you want good Plumbing Service' reviews (2019-06-11). Duplicates were counted only once per unique review in scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent substantive reviews (2022–2024) skew negative, with complaints about billing for unrendered services, inability to get appointments, and no-shows. The positive reviews with detail are predominantly from 2013–2021. This suggests a possible decline in service quality in recent years.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews consist of only one or two generic sentences with no specifics ('Best plumbers out there!', 'Great & fast service. Highly recommended', 'If you want good Plumbing Service call Pearson's Plumbing'). These appear across multiple duplicate pairs and add no verifiable signal. Confidence in the positive side of the score is reduced accordingly.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least three independent reviews describe being billed or quoted for work that was not performed or not agreed upon. One reviewer was told an estimate was impossible and then billed anyway. Another was billed with no services rendered. This is a significant red flag for pricing transparency and business ethics.

This WW Score is based on a substantial number of reviews with usable text, but reliability is moderately reduced due to a high volume of duplicate reviews, numerous blank 5-star entries, and a clear pattern of recent negative reviews suggesting service deterioration — prospective customers should weight the post-2022 negative reviews heavily.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark polarization between highly positive older reviews and severely negative recent reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of rudeness, poor communication, and lack of follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple reviews citing excessive charges, hidden fees discovered mid-project, and aggressive upselling tactics that appear predatory. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, failure to resolve original problems, and refusal to honor callbacks without additional charges. While some reviews praise technical skill, the two most recent and detailed reviews (2024 and 2023) describe misdiagnosis, unnecessary expensive work, and failure to fix the actual problem.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed, recent reviews (August 2024 and July 2023) describe nearly identical patterns of behavior: misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary $15,000+ charges, aggressive upselling, rude customer service, and refusal to honor callbacks without additional fees. These are not generic complaints but specific, documented incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are from 2007, 2016, and 2021 (oldest data). Negative reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent). This suggests a significant decline in service quality or a change in business practices.
• PRICING RED FLAGS: Multiple reviews describe being quoted one price, then charged significantly more after work begins. One customer was quoted $15,000 additional work that turned out to be unnecessary. Another was charged $625 for incomplete work and refused callback service without another $625 charge.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: The August 2024 review explicitly states the original problem was never resolved and the customer had to hire another plumber to fix it for $3,000 (vs. the $15,000+ Masters wanted). The July 2023 review describes incomplete work (no cleanup, no verification) followed by refusal to address the resulting problem.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE DETERIORATION: Recent reviews describe staff as 'very nasty,' 'rude,' and 'not willing to listen.' This contrasts sharply with older reviews praising communication and respect.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 7 reviews, the data is heavily skewed by recency: the two most recent and detailed reviews (2023-2024) describe serious, specific failures in pricing transparency, project completion, and customer service, while older positive reviews lack detail and are 3-17 years old. The pattern of behavior described in recent reviews (misdiagnosis, aggressive upselling, refusal to honor callbacks) appears systematic rather than isolated, suggesting the WW Score reflects a contractor in decline or with fundamentally problematic business practices.

The review set is very small and spans several years, making reliable conclusions difficult. Positive reviews highlight politeness, same-day responsiveness, and technical competence, particularly around water heater and plumbing work. However, two significant negative reviews drag scores down considerably: one describes a technician who refused to properly inspect a water heater despite the customer's insistence, ultimately leading to a competitor completing the job correctly, and another criticizes the absence of a written, itemized estimate. These are serious concerns across professionalism, project completion, and pricing transparency that cannot be dismissed given the small sample size.

• One review (Big Biscuits restaurant review, 2019-05-23) is clearly for a completely unrelated business and has been excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data about this contractor.
• Sample size is very small (4 usable reviews), making all scores low-reliability. Scores should be treated with significant caution.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (all dated 2017–2021), meaning current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• The negative review from 2017 describes a technician refusing to inspect behind a water heater despite a visible leak, which is a serious competence and project completion concern.
• The negative review from 2019 raises a pricing transparency concern — no written estimate or labor breakdown was provided, only a verbal quote and a business card.

This WW Score is based on only 4 usable reviews, all more than 3 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of current contractor performance.

Action Rooter presents a deeply mixed picture across all scored dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple explicit complaints about zero communication, failure to return calls, and showing up hours late or not at all — offset only partially by two positive reviews praising punctuality and respectful communication. Project completion is similarly split: one review describes abandoned work with money already paid and an unfinished water line, while others describe thorough and complete jobs. The pricing dimension receives a very low score due to one explicit allegation of dishonest diagnosis and price gouging ($1,700 vs. a $190 fix elsewhere), with only one neutral pricing comment to balance it. Experience scores moderately, with one reviewer noting 34 years of plumbing experience and quality workmanship, but countered by a post-service failure (hot water lasting only 4 minutes) and a fraudulent diagnosis claim. The most recent usable review (2024) is positive, but the overall pattern across the review history is concerning.

• Three reviews from 2014 contain no usable text ('unknown' or '.') and were excluded from scoring. These blank 5-star reviews are suspicious and may represent fake or placeholder entries.
• The oldest reviews (2014–2019) dominate the dataset. Only one review is within the past 12 months (2024), making recency-weighted confidence very low.
• One review explicitly accuses the owner of dishonest diagnosis to inflate the job price — a serious integrity flag that warrants caution.
• One review describes paid work that was never completed and total unresponsiveness from the owner after follow-up — a significant project abandonment flag.
• With only 6 reviews containing usable data and spanning a 10-year period, the WW Score should be treated as directional only and not definitive.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a small usable review pool (6 reviews), a wide date range spanning 10 years, three blank/suspicious 5-star entries, and only one review from the past 12 months — treat this score as a cautionary signal rather than a confident assessment.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe serious failures across all four dimensions, with only 2-3 reviews providing genuinely positive feedback. Professionalism is heavily penalized by repeated no-shows, broken appointments, belligerent owner behavior, dodged phone calls, and technicians yelling at customers. Project completion is among the worst-scoring dimensions, with multiple reviews describing unfinished work, repeat callbacks for the same unresolved issues, abandoned jobs, and in one case a two-week fight to recover a down payment. Experience scores are critically low due to consistent reports of misdiagnosis, replacing unnecessary parts, using incorrect materials, and leaving equipment in worse condition than found. Pricing received a slightly higher score only because a small number of positive reviews praised affordability, but this is offset by reviews describing charges for ineffective or harmful work totaling thousands of dollars.

• The 3 positive reviews (2023, 2023, 2013) are vastly outnumbered by 11 negative reviews spanning 2006–2021, suggesting the positive reviews may reflect isolated experiences rather than consistent service quality.
• The two most recent positive reviews (2023) are notably detailed and specific, which reduces fake review suspicion for those entries, but they stand in sharp contrast to the long pattern of negative reviews.
• Multiple reviews describe the same recurring failure pattern: misdiagnosis, part replacement without resolution, and dismissive owner responses — suggesting systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer noted the company rebranded from 'Same Day Service' to 'America's Same Day Service,' which may be an attempt to distance from negative reputation — a known red flag for contractor fraud.
• The majority of negative reviews are older than 12 months (many from 2009–2021), but the pattern is consistent enough across a decade that recency weighting does not materially improve the score.
• A reviewer explicitly expressed safety concerns about the company knowing their address after the owner became belligerent — this is a serious professionalism and conduct flag.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions at HIGH confidence, and the low score is well-supported by a consistent, decade-long pattern of negative experiences — this score should be treated as highly reliable.

This contractor's score is heavily dragged down by two detailed, serious negative reviews that describe significant failures across nearly every dimension. The single positive review (Review 1, 2023) does show genuine professionalism and pricing integrity, with Colt and Michael arriving, completing the job, and charging exactly as quoted — even refusing a tip. However, Review 2 (2022) documents a pattern of no-shows, ignored texts, and leaving a customer in a home exceeding 90°F for days without resolution. Review 3 (2021) is the most damaging, alleging incomplete work (pipes left above ground and unburied), refusal to provide cost breakdowns, aggressive callbacks from staff, and the owner ultimately telling the customer to stop contacting him. Project completion is scored especially low because two of three reviews describe work that was either abandoned, left incomplete, or failed shortly after service. The overall picture is of a contractor with inconsistent reliability and serious accountability concerns.

• Two of three reviews describe the owner (Colt Plotke) becoming unresponsive or hostile after problems arose — this is a recurring behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• Review 3 (2021) describes what may constitute a contractual breach: pipes left unburied contrary to the agreed scope of work, no cost breakdown provided, and refusal to remedy the situation.
• Review 2 (2022) documents multiple no-shows with no communication, suggesting a systemic issue with scheduling follow-through for residential clients.
• The single positive review (2023) is the most recent but represents only one data point against two detailed negative accounts. It cannot offset the severity of the negative reviews.
• Review 3 mentions the reviewer has photographic evidence and a signed contract — this adds credibility to the negative claims made.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in tone, length, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship.
• Recency note: The positive review is from 2023 (most recent), but the two negative reviews span 2021–2022. With only 3 total reviews, trend direction cannot be reliably established.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, which is the minimum threshold for calculation — treat this score as directionally informative but not statistically reliable; the two detailed negative reviews carry significant weight and suggest meaningful risk for prospective customers.