Find Nearby Plumbers In Springfield, Missouri

A&D Mechanical has a generally positive track record across most dimensions, anchored by a detailed and credible long-form review describing persistent, skilled troubleshooting of a complex geothermal system and a contractor who honored warranty labor out of pocket — a strong signal of both professionalism and experience. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a 1-star review citing a complete failure to show up or communicate, which is a serious and specific complaint that cannot be dismissed. Pricing signals are positive but thin — only two reviews touch on it, one praising honesty and charging only a minimal fee, and one referencing a competitor's high quote that A&D implicitly undercut — making that dimension low-confidence. Project completion scores moderately well given evidence of follow-through on complex jobs, but the no-show incident introduces real doubt. The oldest reviews (2012–2018) are generic and add limited analytical value.

• One review (2016, 1-star) describes a complete no-show and communication failure — this is a specific, credible negative data point and has been weighted accordingly.
• Three reviews (2012, 2013, 2018) are between 6 and 12 years old and predate the most recent reviews by several years. They carry reduced weight due to age and provide limited insight into current service quality.
• The 2018 review ('I know I have') is incomplete and contains no usable detail — it was counted toward total reviews analyzed but contributed no scorable data.
• The 2012 and 2013 reviews contain generic praise with minimal specifics, which reduces their analytical reliability. No fake review pattern is definitively flagged, but these reviews should be treated as low-signal.
• Only 6 total reviews span a 10-year window, which is a very thin dataset for a contractor. Scores should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability at best — the dataset is small (6 reviews), spans a decade with uneven recency, includes one incomplete review, and contains a credible negative incident that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive signals.

This contractor shows strong project completion and technical skill, with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship, reliability, and problem-solving ability. However, pricing is a significant weakness—multiple recent reviews (2024, 2022) explicitly cite excessive charges, with quotes 3x higher than competitors and installation costs exceeding equipment costs. Professionalism is mixed: older reviews praise punctuality and courtesy, but a 2024 review reports refusal to honor callbacks and a 2022 review cites communication failures. The dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews (2007–2013), with only 3 recent reviews (2024, 2022, 2017), limiting confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 13 of 20 reviews are from 2007–2013 (10+ years old). Only 3 reviews from 2017 onward. Recent reviews (2024, 2022) are significantly more negative, suggesting possible service decline.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 7 reviews contain only 'unknown' text with ratings (2016, 2015, 2014). These provide no usable data and appear to be placeholder or corrupted entries.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Two recent detailed reviews (2024, 2022) independently report excessive pricing (3x competitors, costs exceeding equipment). This is a consistent, credible complaint.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: 2024 review explicitly states refusal to return and fix damage caused during installation—serious project completion failure.
• POTENTIAL LEGAL/ETHICAL ISSUES: 2022 review alleges use of non-certified/unlicensed handymen. 2022 review from attorney raises criminal allegations. These are serious but unverified claims.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and damaging recent reviews suggests either service degradation or data quality issues.

This score should be treated with caution. While older reviews are consistently positive, the three recent detailed reviews (2024, 2022) paint a very different picture of excessive pricing, poor communication, and failure to honor callbacks. The heavy weighting toward 10+ year old data masks what appears to be current performance problems. A score of 72.8 may overstate current reliability; recent performance suggests significantly lower trustworthiness.

KT Construction demonstrates strong professionalism, pricing fairness, and technical skill across multiple positive reviews from 2013–2015. However, the WW Score is significantly depressed by serious project completion failures documented in two recent reviews (2016, 2022): incomplete work, abandoned jobs, unresponsiveness, and inability to track down the contractor. The 2022 review indicates the pattern may be ongoing. While older reviews praise punctuality and follow-through, the more recent evidence of non-completion and communication breakdown creates substantial concern about reliability.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2016-01-16 and 2022-04-30) document severe project completion failures including abandoned work, non-responsiveness, and inability to settle accounts. These are not isolated complaints but describe systematic breakdown in service delivery.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2013–2015 (7+ years old). The two most recent reviews (2016 and 2022) are both 1-star with serious allegations. This suggests a significant deterioration in service quality over time.
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with no text (2016-05-18 and 2016-02-01) cannot be scored but their 1-star and 5-star ratings suggest mixed sentiment during a problematic period.
• The 2016 realtor review is particularly damaging: contractor disappeared mid-project across multiple client homes, stopped returning calls, and left work unfinished. This is not a one-time incident but a pattern affecting multiple properties.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied language patterns.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews (2013–2015) are genuinely positive and detailed, the two most recent reviews document serious, unresolved failures in project completion and communication. The contractor's apparent disappearance and pattern of abandoned work in 2016, combined with a 2022 complaint of incomplete work, suggest the positive historical reputation may no longer be reliable. Recommend contacting recent clients directly before engaging.

Lorenz Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is notably inconsistent—while some customers praise responsiveness and honesty, others report poor communication, unreturned calls, and unresponsive management. Pricing is generally viewed favorably with fair rates and transparency mentioned in multiple reviews. Project completion is a significant weakness, with documented cases of incomplete work, abandoned jobs before Christmas, and incorrect unit sizing requiring multiple callbacks. Technical experience is adequate but marred by a major installation error and repeated service visits to fix the same problem. The company's performance appears highly variable depending on which technician is assigned.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 4-6 years old (2016-2020); only one review from 2020. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star and 1-star reviews with no middle ground, suggesting highly variable technician performance or management inconsistency.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: 2018 review documents serious project completion failure—wrong furnace size installed, multiple callbacks over 2 months, and technician failed to perform basic due diligence (counting registers) before installation.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple mentions of unreturned calls and unresponsive management, including owner Mike not returning calls.
• ABANDONED SERVICE: 2019 review describes technician leaving customer without heat the weekend before Christmas after incomplete diagnosis, then refusing service fee refund.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (most reviews 4+ years old), high variability in outcomes, and documented serious failures in project completion and follow-through. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence and insufficient current information to assess whether issues have been addressed.

Advanced Plumbing receives strong praise for professionalism, communication, and responsiveness across multiple reviews, with Bruce personally noted for thoroughness and customer care. However, a highly detailed and credible 2-star review from 2023 describes a catastrophic whole-house plumbing job with multiple code violations, significant cost overruns ($8,500 quoted vs. $13,400 charged), repeated leaks, and refusal to honor warranty work without additional payment — this substantially drags down project completion and experience scores. Pricing is mixed: one reviewer praised lower-than-expected costs while another paid nearly 60% over the original quote for substandard work. A 2017 review also explicitly flags overbooking and scheduling issues affecting timely project completion. The overall picture is of a company capable of excellent work in inspection and emergency scenarios but with serious documented failures on larger, complex projects.

• The 2023 2-star review is highly detailed, specific, and credible — it describes code violations, cost overruns, multiple leaks, third-party corroboration from a cabinet installer, and refusal to honor warranty work. This review carries significant weight and cannot be dismissed.
• Several 5-star reviews (2017, 2018) are brief and generic with minimal specifics ('Awesome bunch of guys', 'Excellent Company and crew'), which limits their evidentiary value.
• The 2021 and 2022 5-star reviews relate primarily to inspection services, not full plumbing installation — positive signals for that service type may not generalize to larger construction projects.
• Recency note: The most recent substantive negative review is from April 2023, and the most recent positive review is from April 2024. Four of nine reviews are from 2017–2018 and carry reduced weight due to age.
• No fake review pattern detected, but the concentration of older generic 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review count is low (9 reviews), the most damaging review is highly credible and specific, and several positive reviews are either old or relate to a different service type (inspections vs. full installations), limiting direct comparability.

Quality Irrigation earns consistently positive marks across all four dimensions from a small but substantive review set. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising courteous, friendly, and professional behavior from technicians. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers confirming that jobs were fully resolved, leaks were fixed and held over time, and complex problems were worked through to completion. Experience is backed by four reviews noting technical competence, problem-solving under difficult conditions (e.g., rock under soil, controller rewiring), and quality workmanship. Pricing receives a more cautious score — one detailed reviewer noted parts felt slightly expensive and the second-hour rate was high, though the total cost came in below competitors, tempering concerns.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directional only, not definitive.
• Three of the five reviews are older than 12 months (2019, 2020, 2022), with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting is limited.
• No negative reviews present across all 5 submissions — while this may reflect genuine quality, the small sample size makes it impossible to rule out selection bias or incomplete review representation.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, writing style, and specificity, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, three of which are over a year old, making it a low-volume, moderately dated signal that should be treated with caution until more recent reviews are available.