Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Peters, Missouri

Aqueduct Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, communication, transparency, and courteous demeanor. Pricing is generally praised as fair or below competing quotes, with multiple reviewers noting the final bill came in under estimate or significantly below other companies; however, two negative reviews (1-star 'bait and switch' and 1-star 'price too high') introduce a modest downward pull on the pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with numerous reviewers describing jobs finished same-day, follow-through on callbacks, and clean workmanship, though one 3-star review flags a pattern of unresponsiveness to repeat customers in later years. Experience scores are strong, with reviewers citing technical knowledge, effective problem-solving, and high-quality workmanship across a wide variety of plumbing tasks.

• 13 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews share the exact date of 2021-06-10 and 2022-06-10, which may indicate batch-imported or backdated reviews rather than organically submitted ones. Confidence is not reduced significantly given the volume of detailed reviews, but this pattern warrants mild caution.
• One review (2021-06-10, 1-star) states only 'Bait and switch' with no elaboration. This is a serious allegation but lacks detail to fully evaluate. It has been factored into scoring conservatively.
• One review (2021-06-10, 1-star) states only 'Asked price too high with the works being done.' This has been factored into the pricing score.
• One review (2022-07-27, 3-star) explicitly flags that the business became unresponsive to repeat customers after shifting focus to commercial work. This is a credible and specific concern about responsiveness and professionalism.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2021 and earlier). Only a handful of reviews are from 2023–2024. Recency of data is limited and the business's current service quality may differ from what is reflected in the bulk of reviews.
• One review references 'Mark' rather than 'David' and is dated 2014, suggesting either a different technician or a very old review. This review was included but given reduced weight due to age and ambiguity.
• A duplicate review appears to have been submitted twice (hot water tank leak, same text, dates 2021-06-10 and 2021-02-10). Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable detail and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with awareness that the bulk of evidence is more than 12 months old, a small number of negative reviews raise unresolved concerns about pricing transparency and responsiveness, and a clustering of same-date reviews suggests possible batch importing of historical data.

The WW Score of 81.3 reflects a contractor with generally strong performance across professionalism, experience, and pricing, but with a notable weakness in project completion reliability. Three of four reviews are highly positive, praising communication, workmanship, and customer service. However, one 1-star review explicitly states the company failed to deliver promised service results and exhibited rude customer service, which significantly impacts the project completion score. The oldest review dates to 2021, limiting recency data. With only 4 reviews total, confidence remains moderate across all dimensions.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability
• One extreme negative review (1-star) contrasts sharply with three 5-star reviews, suggesting inconsistent service delivery or potential service quality variance
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (3 of 4 from 2021–2023); only one review from 2023 provides recent performance data
• The negative review lacks specific detail about what service was promised versus delivered, making it difficult to assess root cause
• No reviews mention timeline/punctuality explicitly, though one review notes patience with a scheduling error on customer's end

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of most data. The presence of one severe negative review alongside three glowing reviews suggests service quality may be inconsistent; more recent reviews are needed to establish current performance trends.

This contractor shows strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, but is severely hampered by professionalism and reliability issues. Multiple reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, unprofessional behavior, and lack of attention to job site cleanliness and preparation. While positive reviews praise skill and fair pricing, the pattern of broken commitments and attitude problems is consistent across multiple independent accounts spanning several years. The WW Score reflects a contractor with capability but significant execution and interpersonal deficiencies that undermine client trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews (2017, 2021, 2023) document chronic no-shows and missed appointments—this is a pattern, not isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: Serious criminal allegations in 2019 review (theft, fraud, impersonation). While unverified, this appears in public record and cannot be ignored
• Significant recency concern: Most negative reviews are older (2015-2021), but the most recent review (2023-12-05) is highly positive. Unclear if behavior has improved or if positive review is anomalous
• Inconsistency flag: Same technician (Jeremiah) receives both 5-star and 1-star reviews for similar work (HVAC), suggesting highly variable service quality or customer experience
• Professional conduct issues documented: unprofessional language ('boss'), attitude problems, poor communication protocols, lack of proper equipment/preparation
• One review (2019-07-19) uses generic praise ('Just amazing?') with minimal specifics, but this is outweighed by detailed negative accounts

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the data is substantial (8 reviews), the contractor's performance is highly inconsistent and contradictory, with serious professionalism and reliability red flags that persist across years. The most recent positive review suggests possible improvement, but the pattern of no-shows and communication failures is too well-documented to ignore. Potential clients should request references and clarify communication/scheduling protocols before engaging.

This business exhibits severe and consistent failures across all measurable dimensions. Four of five reviews document serious fraud allegations including unauthorized credit card charges, failure to complete work, and non-responsiveness to customer contact. The single 3-star review acknowledges initial courtesy but confirms communication breakdown. No reviews mention technical skill or workmanship quality. The pattern of complaints is substantive and specific (invoice details, charge amounts, dates), not generic. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to the absence of any positive data on the experience dimension and the overwhelmingly negative performance on all other dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Four of five reviews allege fraud, unauthorized charges, and repeated credit card abuse. Multiple reviews reference bank fraud investigations and chargebacks.
• CRITICAL: Consistent pattern of non-responsiveness to customer contact across all negative reviews (phone calls, voicemails, messages ignored).
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete project work with customer charged full price despite unfinished jobs.
• CRITICAL: No positive reviews present. The single 3-star review still documents communication failure.
• These are not fake reviews — they contain specific details (invoice amounts, dates, itemized lists, bank investigation references) and appear to be genuine customer complaints, not competitor slander.
• Recency: All reviews are from June-August 2019 (4+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess if practices have changed.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to age of reviews (2019) and complete absence of any positive data; however, the consistency and specificity of fraud allegations across multiple independent reviews suggests serious historical business practice issues that warrant strong avoidance recommendation regardless of recency.

Both available reviews are 1-star and describe seriously negative experiences. The first review details hostile, dismissive communication and an alleged attempt to extort an upfront payment from a vulnerable elderly customer, reflecting extremely poor professionalism. The second review describes a dangerous electrical installation where incorrect wiring, a faulty GFCI, and a disconnect box with standing water and exposed wires created a life-threatening hazard, indicating critically deficient technical skill and workmanship. Pricing was flagged as excessive in the second review, with the customer noting the charge of $3,500 was far above competing electricians. With only two reviews, no WW Score can be reliably calculated, but all available signals are strongly negative across every dimension.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 1-star with serious, specific complaints — no positive data exists for any dimension.
• Review 1 (2024-07-01): Alleged extortion — contractor reportedly demanded $250 upfront plus a deductible before agreeing to reschedule a warranty job, which may constitute a violation of warranty service agreements.
• Review 2 (2021-11-16): Alleged dangerous and incorrect electrical installation — wrong wire gauge (6-2 instead of 6-3), improper GFCI installation, improperly installed disconnect box with standing water and exposed wires. This represents a potential safety code violation and liability risk.
• Review 2 is over 1 year old (dated November 2021) — recency weighting is reduced for that review, though the severity of the safety concern remains highly relevant.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, detailed, credible complaints with distinct scenarios and writing styles.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be treated as highly preliminary; however, the severity and specificity of both complaints — including alleged extortion and a dangerous electrical installation — are serious red flags that warrant strong caution regardless of sample size.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly positive, praising professionalism (Nathan's consultation and coordination), project completion (cellar now dry after 38 years, swamp eliminated), and experience (crew expertise and diligence). However, pricing is not mentioned at all. With only 1 review, confidence in any dimension is severely limited and cannot support a composite score.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Pricing dimension completely absent from review — cannot assess value for money or fairness of charges.
• Single positive review cannot establish pattern or reliability of service quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. Any score derived from a single review would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.