Find Nearby Plumbers In Springfield, Missouri

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviewers praised punctuality, courtesy, shoe covers, and communication, but a significant number reported no-shows, late arrivals without notice, rude office staff, and dismissive responses to legitimate complaints. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a large volume of reviewers explicitly complained about unexpected charges, bait-and-switch Big Deal pricing, excessive labor rates, and lack of transparency — this is a consistent and serious pattern. Project completion is also troubled: multiple reviews describe incomplete work, return visits required, unresolved issues persisting for months, and in several cases work that was never properly finished or was outright abandoned. Experience scores slightly better — many reviewers acknowledged skilled technicians who knew their craft — but this is undercut by cases of misdiagnosis, shoddy installations, and work that had to be redone multiple times.

• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: At least 15-20 reviews explicitly describe unexpected additional charges, Big Deal bait-and-switch tactics, or rates described as excessive. This is not isolated — it is a recurring business practice pattern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work left incomplete, return visits required for the same issue, problems persisting for months (e.g., HVAC installation taking 5 months, backup pump malfunctioning for over a year with no resolution), and at least one case of suspected fraudulent work (stem replacement where caulk seal was never broken).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE / OWNER RESPONSIVENESS: Several reviews specifically call out the owner and office staff as unresponsive, dismissive, or rude when complaints were raised. This is a structural concern, not a one-off.
• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are dated between 2013 and 2017, with only a small number from 2015-2017. No reviews from the past 5+ years are present. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current operations.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and content. Both positive and negative reviews contain specific details. No evidence of coordinated fake reviews.
• HVAC-SPECIFIC FAILURES: Several 1-star reviews relate specifically to HVAC installation work (ductwork, mold, airflow, energy costs) and appear to involve a different scope of work than plumbing. These were included as they reflect on the same company entity.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of detailed, varied reviews and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that all reviews are more than 5 years old and the company's current performance is unknown.

Affordable Plumbing & Drain presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On professionalism, the contractor earns strong praise from many customers for friendliness, responsiveness, and courteous staff, but is significantly dragged down by multiple serious complaints: no-shows without notice, unanswered calls and texts, a threatening interaction with a prospective customer, and a reckless driving incident in a school zone. Pricing is similarly split — several reviewers confirm genuinely affordable rates and good value, while multiple others explicitly call out high or unexplained charges and a lack of upfront estimates. Project completion is a major concern: at least five reviews describe appointments that were missed entirely or jobs left incomplete, which is a critical failure for a service business. On the positive side, when work is actually performed, the technical quality is generally rated well, with reviewers noting skilled, efficient, and thorough workmanship — though at least two reviews cite poor or incorrect work outcomes.

• Two reviews (dated 2020-12-03 and 2020-12-04) are near-identical duplicates with the same text, likely submitted twice by the same customer — counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• One review (2023-06-10, rating 5.0) contains no text and was excluded from usable data as it provides no scorable information.
• Multiple no-show and non-response complaints span from 2014 through 2023, suggesting a persistent and systemic reliability problem rather than isolated incidents.
• A 2023 review describes the owner making threatening remarks ('goons') to a prospective customer — this is a serious professionalism red flag.
• A 2025 review describes an Affordable Plumbing van running a stop sign in a school zone — while unverified, this is a notable safety and conduct concern.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both positive and strongly negative experiences, indicating the mixed quality pattern has continued into the present day.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'They know old pipes.', 'Thorough good work timely', 'Extremely reliable service. Friendly staff. Easy to deal with.') with no specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those positive signals.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews spanning 2014–2025 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the wide variance in customer experiences — including serious professionalism failures — means the score reflects genuine inconsistency in service delivery rather than measurement uncertainty.

Woody's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship and honest assessments. However, the company suffers from significant and recurring project completion issues, including no-shows, failure to honor callbacks, incomplete follow-up work, and unresolved warranty claims spanning years. Professionalism is mixed—excellent responsiveness and courtesy in initial interactions contrasts sharply with poor communication and accountability during follow-through phases. The most recent negative reviews (2020-2022) suggest systemic deterioration in reliability, particularly under Andrew Twomey's management.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2020-2022) allege no-shows, failure to return calls/texts, and broken promises regarding follow-up work and warranty fulfillment. One customer reported driving 5 hours twice for missed appointments with no communication.
• CRITICAL: One 2022 review documents a 3-year unresolved warranty claim for failed concrete work with repeated promises and eventual abandonment of customer.
• CRITICAL: Potential management/ownership change flagged in 2020 review alleging 'Andrew Twomey' is using 'Keith Briley's license' and suggesting possible scam operation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2011-2022 (older); negative reviews cluster heavily in 2019-2022, suggesting recent deterioration in service quality.
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings (2015) lack substantive detail and cannot be scored; treated as unusable data.
• One review marked 'No response' (2012) lacks content; treated as unusable data.
• Stark divergence between early reviews (2006-2013, consistently positive) and recent reviews (2019-2022, consistently negative) suggests significant operational or management changes.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While technical competence appears solid (HIGH confidence), the company exhibits a severe and documented pattern of project completion failures and communication breakdowns in recent years (2019-2022), which directly contradicts earlier positive reputation. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this deterioration, but customers should be aware that recent reviews suggest substantially higher risk of incomplete work, missed appointments, and unresolved warranty issues than the overall score indicates.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions with very limited review data. Professionalism is supported by responsiveness and trustworthiness, but project completion is severely undermined by a major tile installation failure with poor workmanship and inadequate problem-solving. Pricing appears fair when scope changes occur, but the quality issues and customer dissatisfaction are significant concerns. The extremely small sample size (3 usable reviews) and age of most reviews (2014–2017) severely limit confidence in this score.

• Only 3 usable reviews with substantive data; one review marked 'unknown' with no text content
• All reviews are older than 7 years (2014–2017); no recent performance data available
• One severely negative review (2-star) explicitly criticizes workmanship quality and problem-solving; customer reports crooked tiles and failing caulk with contractor deflecting blame
• Positive reviews lack specific detail about work quality; one review is generic (5-star with minimal information)
• Insufficient recency to assess current contractor performance or whether issues have been corrected

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to very limited sample size, age of reviews, and conflicting quality signals; the score is not reliable for decision-making without additional recent reviews.

This contractor presents a deeply split profile: a large volume of recent 5-star reviews praise individual technicians as professional, knowledgeable, and courteous, which elevates professionalism and experience scores modestly. However, the pricing dimension is severely dragged down by numerous detailed, credible negative reviews describing markups of 50–300% above competitor quotes, aggressive upselling tactics, and pressure sales for unnecessary replacements. Project completion is also mixed, with multiple reviews citing missed appointments, no-shows, abandoned estimates, and at least one case of alleged deliberate sabotage causing a leak. The contrast between glowing short reviews and detailed critical ones creates a reliability concern that prevents any dimension from scoring highly.

• HIGH VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: At least 13 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and inflate the apparent star rating without substance.
• SUSPECTED REVIEW PADDING: The blank 5-star reviews, combined with many very short generic 5-star reviews ('Great!', 'Great service and job well done', 'Excellent, very knowledgeable'), suggest possible review padding or solicited reviews with no authentic detail.
• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent, detailed negative reviews cite wildly inflated quotes — $80,000 vs $28,000 competitor quote, $32,744 vs $15,530, $1,800 vs $600, $1,680 for a minor drain repair, $900 for one hour labor and a cheap faucet, $200/lb refrigerant vs ~$20/lb cost. This is a consistent and credible pattern across multiple years.
• ALLEGED DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Multiple reviews allege deliberate sabotage (disconnecting AC wires or units), unnecessary replacement recommendations, and strong-arm sales tactics including turning off gas during an inspection to force a sale. These are serious allegations spanning 2014–2022.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and late 2024, while the most detailed and damaging negative reviews span 2014–2023. This may reflect genuine improvement or increased review solicitation masking ongoing issues.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FROM AN EMPLOYEE: The review dated 2020-08-10 explicitly states 'Air Services is a great company to work for!' — this is an employee review, not a customer review, and should be excluded from customer-facing scoring.
• ONE REVIEW REFERENCES A DIFFERENT COMPANY: The review dated 2018-06-19 references 'Sams Heating And Air' and appears to be a misplaced review for a different business entirely.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of review padding, a persistent multi-year pattern of credible pricing and deception complaints, and a significant gap between the tone of short generic 5-star reviews and the detailed negative experiences described by other customers.

Paschal receives strongly polarized feedback across a very large review set. On professionalism, the majority of individual technician interactions are praised as courteous, polite, and communicative, but this is heavily offset by a persistent and well-documented pattern of missed appointments, no-shows, poor scheduling communication, and rude office staff — issues that appear consistently across years and locations. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far: dozens of independent reviewers explicitly describe charges as 2x to 5x competitive rates, with multiple accounts of upselling unnecessary parts or services, lack of itemized invoices, and predatory pricing toward elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion suffers significantly from recurring themes of repeat callbacks for the same unresolved issues, abandoned or incomplete work, and parts delays leaving customers without heat or AC for days or weeks. Experience scores moderately well because many individual technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but this is undermined by multiple credible accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect repairs, and work that had to be redone by competitors at a fraction of the cost.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the Spanish-language 1-star review appears twice on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'They were very nice and prompt...' appears twice; 'Tech Mike Rodriguez...' appears twice; 'Donna at Paschal...' appears four times on 2023-09-10; 'Competitive price, prompt follow up...' appears four times on 2023-10-07; 'technician was great, really knew his stuff...' appears four times on 2024-02-24; 'Great service' appears four times on 2024-01-19; 'Do not use this company...' appears twice on 2024-01-19; 'Excellent service with a quick response time...' appears four times on 2023-08-25; 'Overall, the experience was positive...' appears four times on 2023-08-23; 'Don't waste your time with this company...' appears three times on 2024-05-31). These duplicates inflate the apparent review count and may distort the score. Confidence in raw volume is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE/INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of 5-star reviews contain no text (blank body), generic one-liners ('Great service!', 'Outstanding!', 'Great job!'), or suspiciously identical phrasing. These reviews provide no usable data and suggest possible review padding.
• SYSTEMATIC UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations describe technicians recommending unnecessary full-unit replacements when minor repairs were needed, quoting prices 2x-5x what competitors charged for identical work. This is a structural business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY IS A SYSTEMIC FAILURE: No-shows, missed appointment windows, lack of proactive communication, and rescheduling without notice are documented in dozens of reviews spanning 2012 to 2025, indicating this is an unresolved operational problem.
• PREDATORY PRICING TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: Multiple reviewers explicitly describe elderly or disabled customers being quoted prices 3x-5x market rate for standard repairs. One review describes a $4,500 labor charge for a warranty part replacement; another describes $3,000 for a coil replacement that competitors charged $300 for.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews with substantive content span 2019-2025, with the most recent cluster from May-June 2025. The negative patterns (scheduling, pricing, upselling) are consistent across the entire date range, suggesting these are not improving over time.
• COMPANY ACQUISITION CONTEXT: Several reviews note that Paschal acquired previously well-regarded companies (Walker AC, Big Bear, Lyerla), and multiple long-term customers of those prior companies report significant service degradation post-acquisition. Some positive reviews in the dataset appear to reference the predecessor companies rather than Paschal directly, which may inflate positive scores.

This WW Score of 58.2 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a significant proportion of blank or generic 5-star reviews suggesting possible review manipulation, and a stark divide between positive individual technician experiences and deeply negative systemic issues around pricing, scheduling, and project completion.