Find Nearby Plumbers In Springfield, Missouri

Reed's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, particularly in recent 2024–2025 reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews across multiple years describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, rude staff, overbilling without authorization, dishonest damage handling, and poor follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is generally described as reasonable by satisfied customers, but several negative reviewers cite unexpected charges, inflated estimates, and billing for incomplete or incorrect work. Project completion is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was left unfinished or that a second company had to be called to complete the job. The overall picture is a company with capable technicians and good service on straightforward jobs, but with recurring systemic issues in communication, accountability, and quality control that meaningfully drag down the score.

• 26 reviews contain no text at all (blank, '.', or 'unknown') and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these inflate the raw review count without providing usable data.
• The blank and 'unknown' reviews are overwhelmingly 4- or 5-star ratings, which is a pattern consistent with placeholder or low-effort reviews that may artificially boost the star average.
• Two reviews (2016-07-20 and 2016-07-21) appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same review, suggesting a possible duplicate submission.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) span from 2012 through 2025, indicating that professionalism and completion issues are not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern over many years.
• Several negative reviews describe the same types of failures independently: rude staff, abandoned jobs, overbilling, and dishonest handling of damage — this cross-review consistency increases the credibility of the complaints.
• Most reviews from 2015 and earlier carry reduced weight due to age; however, the recurrence of similar complaints in 2019, 2022, 2023, and 2025 suggests these issues have persisted under current operations.
• One reviewer (2025-04-10, 1-star) explicitly states Reed's attempted to charge for work that was not needed, which is a serious integrity concern.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of numerous blank or content-free reviews and a persistent pattern of serious negative experiences across many years means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator — Reed's performs well on routine jobs but carries documented risk of poor outcomes on more complex or disputed work.

The reviews that contain usable detail paint a consistently positive picture of this contractor across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the strongest signal, with 14 reviews explicitly mentioning courteous, friendly, and professional behavior — including punctuality and clear communication. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviews describing jobs finished on time, same-day or emergency responses honored, and follow-through such as returning the next morning to finish a related issue. Experience is evidenced by reviews citing successful handling of older plumbing, non-standard fittings, and complex rerouting jobs. Pricing receives positive but limited mentions, with reviewers describing costs as 'reasonable' and 'fair' without providing specific figures. Overall confidence is tempered by the fact that 6 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', 'See above', 'No problems') and the majority of reviews are more than 3 years old.

• 6 of 24 reviews contain no usable content ('unknown', '.', 'See above', 'No problems') and were excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The majority of substantive reviews date from 2012–2017, with a gap in coverage from 2018–2022 containing minimal detail. Current performance may differ from what these older reviews reflect.
• All 24 reviews carry a 5-star rating (one is 4-star), with zero negative or mixed reviews. While the detailed reviews appear genuine and specific, the complete absence of any critical feedback across a decade of reviews warrants mild caution.
• Several older reviews (2014) are marked 'unknown' with identical dates and ratings, suggesting possible placeholder or imported entries rather than authentic customer submissions.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the detailed reviews are specific and credible, but the score is significantly anchored by reviews that are 5–11 years old, and 6 reviews provided no scorable data, reducing the effective sample size.

Kendall Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness across multiple reviews. Pricing is a notable strength, with customers repeatedly highlighting fair and transparent quotes compared to competitors, though one review noted slightly elevated costs. Project completion is solid with evidence of same-day service, problem resolution, and follow-up callbacks. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident from reviews describing complex issues (backflow, water heater replacement, correcting prior work) being handled competently. The primary concern is the 1-star licensing fraud allegation from 2023, which significantly impacts overall trustworthiness despite positive customer feedback.

• CRITICAL: One review (2023-09-15) alleges unlicensed and fraudulent contractor status with references to license verification searches. This is a serious legal/compliance red flag that contradicts positive customer reviews and raises questions about legitimacy.
• Two reviews are extremely old (2006, 2011) and should be weighted minimally in current assessment.
• Multiple 5-star reviews from 2022-2023 show similar positive phrasing patterns (emphasis on 'reasonable pricing', 'professional', 'fast service') which could suggest curated or filtered reviews, though specificity varies enough to avoid full fake review classification.
• Review from 2006 mentions needing two calls to get service, suggesting potential responsiveness issues in past operations.

This score should be treated with significant caution due to the unresolved licensing fraud allegation from 2023, which directly contradicts the positive customer feedback and raises serious questions about the contractor's legal standing and legitimacy regardless of service quality ratings.

H-Vac demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for courteous, knowledgeable technicians who are punctual and responsive. Technical expertise is evident across multiple reviews, with technicians correctly diagnosing problems and providing honest assessments without unnecessary upselling. However, project completion shows significant concerns: one major installation was undersized by 2 tons despite complete specifications provided, resulting in $6,600 in additional costs and poor follow-up communication. Pricing feedback is mixed, with complaints about service call charges plus hourly billing and one customer noting they were the high bidder. The company's age (reviews span 2008–2015) and mixed recent history limit confidence in current reliability.

• CRITICAL: Major project failure in 2012 — HVAC system undersized by 2 tons despite complete construction documents provided. Customer incurred $6,600 in remedial costs. Company stopped returning calls after installation issues emerged.
• Pricing concerns: Multiple reviews mention high costs, service call fees plus hourly billing, and one customer explicitly stated they were the high bidder and will not use again.
• Installation quality issue (2012): Plumbing error allowed sewer gas into equipment room; described as 'total redo from the get go' and 'non-responsive.'
• Review age: Most reviews are 8–15 years old (2008–2015). Only 1 review from 2015 provides recent data. Current company performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• Two reviews (2014-08-05 and 2014-08-06) contain minimal or no usable text ('unknown' and vague complaint), reducing data quality.
• Inconsistent service quality: Strong positive reviews contrast sharply with severe failures, suggesting inconsistent workmanship or quality control.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 8+ years old), significant project failures documented in 2012, and mixed pricing feedback. The score reflects historical performance but does not reliably predict current service quality. Recommend requesting recent references and detailed warranty terms before engaging.

Draper Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with most reviews praising punctuality, professionalism, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing transparency and communication failures documented in two recent reviews (2022) involving unclear cost disclosure and poor payment security practices. The older reviews (2011–2020) are overwhelmingly positive, but the recency of the negative feedback and the severity of the issues raised—including potential PCI compliance violations—create material concerns about current operations. The WW Score reflects solid execution capability offset by critical gaps in customer communication and financial practices.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The first two reviews are identical in content with nearly identical timestamps (2022-01-22 and 2022-01-17), suggesting either a system error or intentional duplicate submission. This inflates negative sentiment weight and should be treated as a single complaint.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 12 of 14 reviews are older than 2 years (pre-2022). Only 2 recent reviews exist, both highly negative. This creates a stark contrast between historical performance and current operations.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: Two identical reviews document unclear communication about service charges ($65 diagnostic fee), with the customer explicitly stating they were misled about cost structure. This is a material business practice issue.
• SECURITY/COMPLIANCE RISK: Reviews document credit card information being handwritten on receipts including security codes, which violates PCI DSS standards. This is a serious operational and legal risk.
• CLEANLINESS/CARE ISSUES: Multiple mentions of mess left behind (dirt, metal pieces, salt in tub) and property damage (chipped toilet), suggesting inconsistent job site management.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: The dramatic shift from 5-star historical reviews to 2–3 star recent reviews makes it difficult to assess current reliability. The company may have experienced operational changes or quality degradation.

This score should be treated with caution due to recency bias and a stark divergence between historical and current performance. The WW Score reflects strong historical execution but is significantly weighted down by recent documented failures in pricing transparency and payment security. Any decision to hire should prioritize clarification of current business practices and payment procedures.

White Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for courteous, punctual technicians (Jake, Chris, Colton, Dustin, Trevor) who communicate clearly and explain work thoroughly. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across multiple reviews. However, pricing is a significant weakness: multiple recent reviews (2025) explicitly criticize high costs, with specific complaints about $4,000 hot water heater quotes, $457 for wax ring replacement, and $300+ drain snaking—substantially above competitor pricing. Project completion shows mixed results: most jobs are completed successfully and on-time, but several older reviews (2023–2024) describe serious failures including forgotten pipe reconnections causing flood damage, no-shows despite scheduling, and poor follow-through. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but pricing concerns persist and undermine overall trust.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple recent reviews (June 2025) explicitly criticize pricing as significantly higher than competitors. One customer was quoted $4,000 for a hot water heater and reported high-pressure sales tactics. Another noted $457 for wax ring replacement. A third stated $300+ for drain snaking was excessive. This pattern suggests systematic overpricing.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAGS: Older reviews (2023–2024) describe serious failures: one customer reported technician forgot to reconnect a pipe, causing thousands in flood damage with company refusing to fix the mistake; another reported multiple no-shows despite scheduling and poor communication from owner Jim White; a third described four failed store trips and incorrect parts with customer charged full price despite technician error.
• ESTIMATE/QUOTE CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024–2025) report aggressive charging for estimates. One customer with a son on disability was charged $59 for a 'free estimate' that resulted in no work. Another was charged $59 just for a technician to show up and provide an estimate, then quoted $400 for drain snaking.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (April–June 2025) are 5-star with strong praise. Older reviews (2023–2024) contain serious complaints about project failures and communication. This temporal split suggests either significant company improvement or potential review manipulation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings on 2025-05-26 and 2025-04-10), which is unusual and reduces data quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'efficient,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. However, many reviews do contain specific technician names and detailed scenarios, which mitigates this concern.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 16–28 mentions, the pricing score is based on only 9 mentions and reveals a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction with costs relative to competitors. The temporal split between recent 5-star reviews and older 1–3 star reviews describing serious project failures (pipe disconnection, no-shows, poor communication) raises questions about consistency and reliability. The company may have improved recently, but pricing concerns persist in the most recent reviews, and the historical pattern of project completion failures cannot be ignored.