Find Nearby Plumbers In Springfield, Missouri

Three of the four reviews speak positively about professionalism, describing technicians as friendly, fast, and responsive — including a notable emergency response to a flooded basement. Project completion is generally well-regarded, with jobs described as finished quickly and thoroughly. However, the pricing dimension is significantly dragged down by one detailed and credible 3-star review from a disabled veteran on a fixed income, who described a repair that cost nearly double a reasonable market rate and a grinder pump estimate more than twice competing bids. While only one review explicitly addresses pricing, its specificity and severity warrant a conservative score. Experience scores moderately, with positive mentions of technical competence but no strong depth of detail across reviews.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• Three of the four positive reviews (2019, 2023) contain no pricing information, which may mask a systemic pricing concern surfaced in the 2016 review.
• The 2016 review is the oldest in the set and predates the others by 3+ years — pricing practices may have changed, but cannot be confirmed from available data.
• The three 5-star reviews are relatively brief and lack granular detail, which slightly reduces confidence in their depth, though they do name specific technicians and describe specific situations — not flagged as fake, but noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: Two reviews are from 2019 and one from 2016 — only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months relative to a typical analysis window. Score reliability is reduced by the age of most reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years, with just one recent review, making it LOW reliability — treat this score as a rough directional signal only and seek additional data before making a hiring decision.

Hope Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in customer interactions, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, friendliness, and communication. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated estimates, and prices 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is generally solid with good follow-through, though some scheduling and quality control issues appear. The stark contrast between positive service experiences and negative pricing feedback creates a polarized review pattern, with many customers acknowledging good work but expressing regret over cost.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 40-50 reviews (primarily dated 2025-06-08 through 2025-06-05) exhibit highly suspicious characteristics: identical or near-identical phrasing ('amazingly positive experience,' 'quick and professional service,' 'Seth could not have been more helpful'), all 5-star ratings with minimal detail, repetitive structure, and clustering within 3-day window. These appear artificially generated to inflate ratings.
• SEVERE PRICING COMPLAINTS: 35+ reviews explicitly accuse Hope of price gouging, overcharging, and quoting 2-6x competitor prices for identical work. Multiple customers report getting second opinions and discovering Hope's estimates were $1,000-$4,000+ higher. This is the single most damaging pattern in the dataset.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews report missed appointments, rescheduling without notice, technicians arriving hours late, and customers being told 'we ran out of time' after blocking entire days. This contradicts the company's stated communication strengths.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: While many reviews praise technician skill, others report incomplete work, damage caused during service (flooded basements, broken water lines), and poor follow-up on warranty claims.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Numerous reviews describe technicians recommending expensive upgrades (water softeners, full system replacements) when simpler/cheaper fixes were available. Some customers report being pressured or given misleading diagnoses to justify higher-cost solutions.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to apparent fake reviews inflating the dataset, but the pricing complaints are credible, consistent, and corroborated across many independent reviews spanning years. The company excels at professionalism and technical skill but has a documented pattern of significantly overcharging relative to market rates, which materially impacts overall value and trustworthiness.

Progressive Plumbing and its associated entities receive broadly positive marks for professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising named technicians such as Daniel, Victor, Marcus, Justin, and Roberto for being courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, arbitrary, or deceptive — including instances of verbal quotes being exceeded, refusal to itemize bills, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed promptly and well, there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, callbacks that were never honored, and at least one case of a job left incomplete with damage caused. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range significantly suppresses the overall score.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews reference 'San Bruno Plumbing' as the company name, while the majority reference 'Progressive Plumbing' or 'Progressive Service Company.' These may be distinct businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together, which would make the composite score unreliable.
• FAKE OR PADDING REVIEW CONCERN: At least 30+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent rating volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review for Marcus ('came on time in fact earlier than expected... cost was fair, lower than expected') appears verbatim on both 2025-05-19 and 2025-05-16. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. A significant portion of negative pricing and project completion reviews date from 2017–2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated — they appear across many years, many technicians, and many job types (water heaters, toilet repairs, faucet installs, drain clearing). This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as outliers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians performing unauthorized work, billing tenants without owner approval, leaving job sites in disarray, being rude or dismissive, and in one case potentially misusing a credit card. These are serious conduct flags.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no follow-up communication was made. This is a recurring project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing complaints, suspected entity mixing between 'Progressive Plumbing' and 'San Bruno Plumbing,' a high volume of blank filler reviews, and recurring patterns of no-shows and incomplete work that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.

All Hours Plumbing (now operating under Whipple) presents a deeply mixed picture across its long review history. Professionalism scores moderately — many individual technicians (Pete, Dustin, Clark, TJ, Ken Abbott, Bubby, Lee, Brad, etc.) are praised warmly for friendliness, communication, and punctuality, but this is offset by a significant number of reviews citing no-shows, late arrivals, rude dispatchers, and cancelled appointments. Pricing is the single largest drag on the score: an unusually high volume of reviewers explicitly describe charges as predatory, far above competitor quotes, and inconsistent with what was quoted over the phone — this is not a fringe complaint but a dominant pattern across many years and many reviewers. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well and same-day, but there are credible accounts of unfinished work, failed inspections, jobs left out of code, and technicians who could not diagnose or resolve the problem they were paid to fix. Experience scores moderately positive — many techs are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but several reviews describe outright incompetence or unnecessary upselling of repairs that other plumbers later resolved cheaply and simply. The acquisition by Whipple appears to have worsened service quality and pricing practices based on updated reviews from long-term customers.

• OWNERSHIP CHANGE WARNING: Multiple reviewers explicitly note that All Hours Plumbing was acquired by Whipple. Several long-term customers updated their previously positive reviews to negative after the acquisition. Scores from pre-acquisition reviews (roughly pre-2023) may not reflect current service quality.
• PRICING PATTERN — POSSIBLE PREDATORY PRACTICES: An unusually high number of reviews (across multiple years and reviewers) describe quotes that were 3x–5x higher than competitor prices for identical work. Examples include: $1,375 vs $298 for a shower valve, $485 vs $375 for a garbage disposal install, $700 vs $150 for a jet drain, $3,500 vs $2,300 for a water heater, $25k vs $8k for pipe replacement. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple independent reviews describe no-shows, last-minute cancellations, technicians arriving hours late, and dispatchers being rude or unhelpful when customers followed up. This is a recurring operational failure.
• ALLEGED FRAUD: At least two reviews allege that a technician forged a customer's signature on an invoice. One review also alleges a tech watched YouTube videos to diagnose a problem and still charged $650 without fixing it. These are serious claims that reduce confidence in the company's integrity.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2014 to 2025. Reviews from 2014–2019 are generally more positive and reference specific well-regarded technicians (Chuck, Paul, Clark). Reviews from 2022 onward show a notable increase in negative experiences, particularly around pricing and appointment reliability, coinciding with the Whipple acquisition period.
• 6 reviews contained no usable text (blank or emoji-only) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews are highly varied in language, detail, and sentiment. Named technicians differ across reviews. Negative reviews are specific and detailed. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score is based on a large sample of 103 usable reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but consumers should weight recent reviews (2022–2025) most heavily given the ownership change to Whipple, which multiple long-term customers explicitly identify as a turning point for worse service and pricing.

Southwest Plumbing shows a mixed profile with significant strengths in technical skill and experience (75.5), but notable weaknesses in pricing transparency and fairness (58.0). Professionalism scores moderately at 72.5, reflecting inconsistent customer service—some technicians are praised as courteous and responsive, while others are criticized for rudeness and poor communication. Project completion (71.0) reveals a pattern of incomplete work, no-shows, and follow-up failures. The company demonstrates strong technical capability when work is performed, but operational and customer service issues significantly undermine overall reliability. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show persistent problems with appointment scheduling, communication, and billing practices.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly mention overcharging, hidden fees, overtime charges for waiting time, and lack of transparent estimates. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Numerous reviews (12+) report unanswered calls, missed callbacks, no-shows, and poor scheduling communication. This pattern spans from 2015 to 2025.
• CREDIT CARD REQUIREMENT: Multiple recent reviews (2023-2025) report company requires credit card information just to schedule appointments, which several customers flag as a red warning sign for trustworthiness.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician professionalism and competence. Some technicians (Kirk, James, Zeke, Alex) are individually praised; others are criticized for rudeness, incompetence, or incomplete work.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Several reviews report company refusing to honor warranty claims or charging for callbacks on incomplete repairs.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 8-10 reviews from 2020-2021 and 2018-2019 contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('Great service', 'Awesome business', 'Good plumbing place') with no review text. These may be placeholder or fake reviews. However, this does not substantially alter scoring as negative reviews are highly detailed and specific.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most problematic reviews are from 2023-2025 (recent), suggesting issues may be worsening or becoming more prevalent. Older positive reviews (2014-2017) may not reflect current operations.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution and weighted toward the negative end of the moderate range. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and some excellent individual technicians, the consistent pattern of communication failures, pricing disputes, and operational issues across 127 reviews spanning a decade indicates systemic problems. The HIGH confidence is based on volume of mentions, but the score itself reflects a company with serious reliability concerns that outweigh technical strengths. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, verify all charges before payment, and consider alternative providers given the documented pattern of billing disputes and poor follow-through.

This review set aggregates feedback across what appears to be multiple contractors and companies all operating under or associated with the 'ASAP Plumbing' name, which significantly complicates scoring. Positive reviews — many centered on individual plumbers named Bruce, Jerry, and Anthony — consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, driving scores upward across all dimensions. However, a substantial cluster of serious negative reviews describes abandoned work, dangerous code violations, dishonest upselling, rude behavior, and jobs left incomplete or improperly executed, pulling scores down considerably. The water heater installation failure described in two separate reviews (likely the same incident) is a particularly damaging data point for both project completion and experience. Overall, the score reflects a deeply mixed contractor profile where individual technician quality varies enormously and company-level accountability is a recurring concern.

• MULTIPLE ENTITIES WARNING: Reviews appear to reference several distinct contractors and possibly multiple separate businesses all using the 'ASAP Plumbing' name across different geographic regions (California, Kansas, Virginia, etc.). Scores should not be interpreted as reflecting a single unified business.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contained no text content (only a rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews. Their uniformly positive ratings with zero detail raise concerns about authenticity.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: Several reviews consist of only a period ('.'), 'unknown', or a single generic sentence with no specifics. These add no usable data and inflate the raw star average artificially.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2002 to 2024. A significant number of reviews predate 2020 and were given reduced weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) include a dangerous water heater installation failure and an abandoned job with no follow-up, which are weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2002) describes a boiler flue installation that was not up to code, caused carbon monoxide leakage, triggered a fire department response, and was subsequently repaired improperly. Another (2024) describes an oversized water heater installed without a drip pan in a confined space, leading to unit failure within a month. These are significant safety and competence red flags.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were started but never completed, with the company becoming unreachable afterward. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods and locations.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least two reviews describe charges of approximately $1,800 for water heater installations that resulted in immediate failure, followed by demands for an additional $580 without proper diagnosis. One review describes a $5,200 quote that a second plumber resolved for $160.
• HIDDEN FEES: One reviewer noted an undisclosed 3.5% credit card surcharge revealed only after work was completed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a guide to any single contractor is LOW because the reviews almost certainly reflect multiple distinct businesses and individual plumbers operating under similar or identical trade names across different regions — consumers should verify which specific entity and technician they are hiring before relying on this score.