Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Charles, Missouri

Overland Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians — with numerous reviewers specifically praising named plumbers like Patrick, Hugo, Tyler, and Geremi for being on time, polite, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished in a timely manner and several instances of callbacks being honored, though there are notable failures including an incomplete leak repair, a faucet installed backwards, and at least one case where the problem was never resolved. Pricing is the most significant drag on the score: a substantial number of reviewers — across multiple years — explicitly flagged overcharging, price changes after quotes were given, inflated part costs, and in one detailed case, outright dishonesty about parts purchased. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians, but offset by several reviews describing incompetent work, failure to diagnose problems correctly, and work that did not meet code. The combination of strong interpersonal scores and a persistent, well-documented pricing integrity problem produces a mid-range WW Score.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe price changes after initial quotes, inflated part costs (e.g., $700 quoted vs $200 retail for a regulator), and charges for work not performed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2021-04-15 are word-for-word identical (Patrick/Grohe faucet review by 'Don'). Only one was counted in scoring.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (2023-07-15) describes a plumber installing faucet handles backwards, failing to install a drain stopper, charging $700 for a $200 part, and the owner repeatedly failing to issue a promised refund. This review is highly specific and credible.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: At least two reviews describe work that was not completed correctly on the first visit and required return trips, and one review states the leak problem was never resolved.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY ISSUE: Multiple reviews mention late arrivals, last-minute cancellations, and scheduling miscommunication, which moderately suppresses the professionalism score.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2019 to 2024. Pricing complaints appear consistently across all years, suggesting this is not a historical issue that has been resolved. The most recent reviews (2024) are generally more positive but lack pricing detail.
• LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Approximately 20-25 reviews contain no substantive commentary (e.g., 'Great work!', 'Thanks', '.', 'No comments'). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many reviews are positive, they reference specific technician names, specific jobs, and specific dates, suggesting authentic customer experiences rather than fabricated reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large sample of 201 reviews spanning over five years and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the persistent and well-documented pricing complaints represent a material risk that prospective customers should weigh carefully before hiring.

All Clear Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill, with many customers highlighting prompt arrivals, friendly technicians, and successful resolution of complex plumbing issues. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises serious concerns across all dimensions: hidden charges and pricing disputes appear in at least 4 reviews, failed or incomplete work requiring redo appears in at least 3 reviews, and rude or unprofessional behavior is cited in at least 3 reviews. Project completion is notably penalized by incidents of abandoned follow-through, a job that had to be redone twice, a toilet repair that failed and required a callback that was delayed, and a crew that never followed up after a failed drain clearing. Pricing confidence is dragged down by explicit complaints of overcharging, surprise fees, and one customer alleging outright fraudulent upselling. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths but a non-trivial pattern of service failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use 'unknown' as text content and were excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints are significant: at least 4 reviews explicitly describe hidden charges, surprise fees, or alleged price gouging. One review describes a $610 out-of-pocket demand for unnecessary parts under a home warranty. Another describes $330 for 10 minutes of work. These are not isolated incidents.
• Project completion failures noted in multiple reviews: one customer had a job fail and require redo twice; one toilet repair leaked again shortly after; one crew failed to follow up for an entire week after an incomplete job; one customer states both jobs had to be redone by a different professional.
• Rudeness/unprofessionalism flagged in at least 3 negative reviews: one describes the plumber as 'argumentative and rude,' one describes the owner as hanging up and being a 'complete prick,' and one describes a very hostile interaction over an estimate.
• Recency note: The majority of positive reviews are from 2017–2021 or earlier. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both positives and a significant 1-star review about hidden charges and jobs needing to be redone. The 2022 negative reviews about follow-through failures are also notable.
• Some older reviews (2007–2014) reference different named technicians and may reflect a different operational period of the business. These were included but given reduced implicit weight due to age.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though a large number of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'The best', 'Excellent!', 'Great - quick & efficient') slightly reduce confidence in the positive signal. These were scored conservatively.
• One 1-star review (Dan and Darwin, 2018-10-31) gave positive descriptive content but a 1-star rating — this appears to be a data entry error or misclick. It was treated as ambiguous and not used to penalize scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (87 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the persistent pattern of pricing complaints and project completion failures across multiple years means the score should be treated as a genuine mixed signal — not a blanket endorsement.

Joshua Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise based on multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and skill level. However, the WW Score is significantly dampened by a severe project completion failure documented in a 2023 review where critical plumbing work remained unresolved for 9 months with no callback response. Pricing appears fair based on one review highlighting honest value assessment, but limited data prevents confident evaluation. The company shows integrity in declining unnecessary work, yet the recent abandonment of customer service obligations creates substantial reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: One recent review (May 2023) documents severe project completion failure—9-month unresolved issue with no callback response despite multiple contact attempts. This directly contradicts claims of reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of five reviews are older than 5 years (2014, 2016, 2020). Only two reviews from 2023 provide current performance data, and they show conflicting quality signals.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The oldest reviews (2014, 2016, 2020) use generic superlative language ('best plumbers,' 'best contractors,' 'excellent service') with minimal specific detail. However, the 2023 reviews provide concrete specifics, suggesting these older reviews may be less reliable indicators of current performance.
• DATA IMBALANCE: Project completion mentions are low (n=2) with one catastrophic failure heavily weighting the score downward. Confidence in this dimension is limited.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews suggest competence and professionalism, the recent documented failure to complete work and respond to customer communications for 9 months represents a critical red flag that undermines overall trustworthiness. The small sample size and age of most positive reviews further limit confidence in current performance reliability.

United Plumbing shows strong technical competence and generally reliable professionalism, with many customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns: multiple recent reviews (2022-2024) allege overcharging, lack of upfront quotes, and charges 10-80x higher than competitors for identical work. The pattern of complaints about elderly customers being targeted for inflated estimates is particularly troubling. While older reviews are consistently positive, the recent negative trend suggests either a change in business practices or a pattern of predatory pricing that cannot be ignored.

• CRITICAL: Multiple recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022) allege systematic overcharging and targeting of elderly customers. Review from 2024-09-03 claims $800 for ~1 hour labor; 2024-06-11 claims $1,600 estimate vs. $50 actual cost elsewhere; 2022-02-14 claims $450 + $3,310 estimate vs. $40 actual cost.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2013-2020 (older than 4 years). Negative reviews cluster in 2022-2024 (recent). This temporal pattern suggests deterioration in business practices or a shift toward predatory pricing.
• PRICING PATTERN: Negative reviews consistently cite lack of upfront quotes, surprise high bills after work completion, and charges dramatically exceeding market rates. This is not isolated complaint but repeated pattern across multiple customers.
• POTENTIAL FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews from 2015-2020 use nearly identical phrasing ('Mark Miller,' 'excellent service,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend') with generic praise and no specific details. However, these are older and may reflect genuine repeat customers rather than fabricated reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK ALLEGATION: 2023-01-05 review documents incomplete drain clearing requiring callback at additional cost, suggesting quality control issues.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 reflects mixed data, the recent pattern of serious pricing allegations (2022-2024) contradicts the older positive reviews (2013-2020), suggesting the company's current practices may be significantly worse than this score indicates. The company demonstrates technical competence but appears to have serious ethical issues around pricing transparency and targeting vulnerable customers. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written quotes upfront and verify pricing with independent contractors before engaging this company.

MT Drains receives strong praise from satisfied customers for responsiveness, fair pricing, and professional demeanor, with specific mentions of same-day service, photo documentation, and warranty follow-through. However, a significant and detailed 1-star review describes two consecutive no-call/no-show incidents involving a tenant with an urgent sewer issue, which is a serious project completion and professionalism failure that materially drags down both dimensions. The no-show review is credible and specific, carrying substantial weight despite being outnumbered by positive reviews. With only 4 total reviews, the dataset is too small to draw firm conclusions, and the single negative review represents 25% of all feedback. Scores are intentionally conservative to reflect this uncertainty.

• Only 4 reviews total — dataset is too small for high-confidence scoring. WW Score should be treated as preliminary only.
• The 1-star review (June 2024) is highly credible and specific: it describes two separate no-call/no-show incidents, a tenant with an urgent sewer issue, and unanswered texts. This is a serious reliability concern that significantly impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• Three of four reviews are 5-star with broadly positive but somewhat generic language ('great customer service,' 'trustworthy business'). While not conclusively fake, the lack of granular detail in some positive reviews warrants mild caution.
• One review (August 2023) is older than 12 months and was given reduced weight relative to the more recent 2024 reviews.
• No pattern of clearly fake reviews detected, but the small sample size limits the ability to rule out review selection bias.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to only 4 reviews, a credible and serious no-show complaint that represents 25% of all feedback, and insufficient data volume to confidently offset that negative signal with the positive reviews present.

Reed's Plumbing presents a deeply inconsistent track record across all dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, unreturned calls, and abandoned job sites — despite several earlier reviews praising responsiveness and friendly demeanor. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with at least four reviews describing unfinished work, broken commitments, and in two cases, money taken for materials that were never delivered or used. Pricing and experience scores are moderately positive based on earlier reviews praising fair rates and quality workmanship, but these are undermined by the pattern of non-delivery. The negative reviews contain specific, detailed, and credible accounts of financial harm and contract abandonment, which carry significant weight in this assessment.

• SERIOUS CONCERN — Multiple reviews (2016 and 2013) independently describe the same pattern: money paid upfront for materials that were never purchased or delivered, forcing customers to pay twice. This is a recurring and specific financial misconduct pattern, not isolated complaints.
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN — At least three reviews describe jobs left unfinished mid-project, with the contractor becoming unresponsive after partial payment. This is a critical project completion red flag.
• RECENCY WARNING — The most recent review is from April 2021, and the majority of reviews are from 2013–2016. The score may not reflect current business practices. Only one review is within the past 3 years.
• SCORE POLARIZATION — Reviews are heavily split between 5-star and 1-star with no middle ground, suggesting the contractor may perform well on small or straightforward jobs but fails significantly on larger or more complex contracted work.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED — Negative reviews contain specific dollar amounts, job descriptions, and timelines that indicate genuine customer experiences. Positive reviews also contain specific details and are not considered suspicious.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning 2013–2021, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to the age of most reviews and a documented pattern of serious financial and contractual misconduct that meaningfully lowers confidence in this contractor for any large or prepaid project.