Find Nearby Plumbers In Fargo, North Dakota

The majority of reviews praise Craig and Jeff for responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, with multiple reviewers noting they came back for repeat work — a strong signal of trust. However, one significant negative review from 2016 describes a serious professionalism failure: a callback dispute handled with profanity, refusal to correct a leak caused by the plumber's own work, and poor attitude. This single review carries meaningful weight because it directly contradicts the positive pattern and describes a concrete, specific incident. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with one reviewer noting Jeff came in well under his own estimate. The score is tempered by the negative review and the fact that most positive reviews are over a decade old, reducing their reliability as indicators of current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: 7 of 9 reviews are from 2011 or earlier — some dating back to 2006. Only 1 review is from the past 5 years (2021). These older reviews may not reflect current quality or business practices.
• CONTRACTOR NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference both 'Craig' and 'Jeff' as the plumber, suggesting either multiple technicians or possible review mixing. This reduces confidence that all reviews describe the same individual's performance.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — CALLBACK FAILURE: The 1-star review (2016) explicitly describes a plumber-caused leak, refusal to return and fix it, and use of profane language. This is a direct project completion and professionalism failure and was weighted accordingly.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several older 5-star reviews (2006–2011) use brief, non-specific language ('very pleasant,' 'very good') with limited detail. While not conclusively fake, they carry lower evidentiary weight due to lack of specifics.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while data volume is adequate, the overwhelming majority of reviews are more than 10 years old, one serious negative incident is on record, and the dual-name inconsistency raises questions about review attribution, all of which meaningfully limit confidence in this score as a reflection of current contractor performance.

All four reviews speak positively about Mission Mechanical's professionalism, with explicit mentions of prompt communication, courteous staff, and professional conduct across multiple job types including HVAC installation, kitchen equipment, and plumbing repair. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting work finished on time or ahead of schedule, clean job sites, and thorough follow-through on complex repairs. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews — one citing fair pricing generally and another citing a dramatic $7,500 savings versus a competitor — but the limited mention count keeps confidence low for that dimension. Experience and technical skill are affirmed across three reviews through references to competent diagnostics, correct repair recommendations, and high-quality workmanship. Overall, the reviews paint a consistently positive picture, though the small sample size and the age of two reviews (2015 and 2018) significantly limit reliability.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw statistically reliable conclusions about this contractor's typical performance.
• Two of the four reviews are significantly outdated: one from 2015 and one from 2018. These are more than 6 years old and may not reflect current service quality. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024).
• All four reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever. While the reviews do contain specific details and named individuals (Tom Day, Derone, Bobby), the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• No negative experiences, complaints, or constructive criticism appear in any review. This is not necessarily a red flag given the small sample, but it means the score cannot account for any potential weaknesses.

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), the age of half the reviews (2015 and 2018), and the absence of any critical feedback — consumers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

All four reviews speak positively about Bart's professionalism, describing him as reliable, honest, trustworthy, patient, and conscientious. Project completion is consistently affirmed across reviews, with problems diagnosed and resolved on the spot in multiple cases. Experience and technical knowledge are explicitly praised, particularly around radiant floor heating, boiler systems, and general plumbing troubleshooting. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where the work was described as 'quite reasonably priced,' making that dimension low-confidence. Overall, the reviews paint a consistently positive picture, though the small sample size and age of the reviews significantly limit reliability.

• All 4 reviews are from 2013–2014, making them 10+ years old. These reviews carry very low recency weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for decision-making.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details and varied language, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small set warrants mild caution.
• Pricing data is based on a single mention — that dimension score is LOW confidence and should not be weighted heavily.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review count (4 reviews), the complete absence of reviews from the past 10+ years, and the lack of any critical or mixed feedback to calibrate scoring against.

Only two reviews contained usable data, with one review marked as 'unknown' and providing no actionable information. The two substantive reviews paint a generally positive picture: quick response times, clean and efficient work, and a commendable callback at no additional charge when a post-service concern arose. However, the extremely small sample size and the age of the reviews — one from 2022 and one from 2016 — severely limit the reliability of any conclusions drawn. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions to reflect this uncertainty.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is below the threshold for high confidence scoring. Results should be treated as preliminary only.
• One review contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Two of the three reviews are older than 12 months, with one dating back to 2016 (over 8 years old). Recent performance cannot be assessed.
• The small sample size makes it impossible to detect patterns of fake reviews, but the generic phrasing in the 2022 review ('Great company! Highly recommended.') with no specific detail warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on only 2 usable reviews, one of which is over 8 years old, making it a LOW reliability indicator of current contractor performance — significantly more reviews are needed before this score should be trusted for decision-making.

Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and communication. Technical experience is solid (81.0), with many reviews highlighting knowledgeable and skilled work. Project completion is reliable (78.5), though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. However, pricing is a critical weakness (42.0), with overwhelming complaints about exorbitant charges—often 2-3x market rates, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling. This pricing problem significantly depresses the overall WW Score despite operational strengths.

• PRICING CRISIS: 89 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Recurring pattern of quotes 2-3x higher than competitors, with numerous examples of $600-$2300+ charges for routine work. This is the dominant complaint across the review set.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (no text, only rating/date). At least 15 reviews contain only 'unknown' or blank text with 5-star ratings. These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated reviews and reduce confidence in the 5-star aggregate.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in outcomes—some reviews praise exceptional work; others report incomplete jobs, misdiagnosis, and damage caused by technicians (e.g., burned wall, broken pipes). Suggests inconsistent training or quality control.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews report promised callbacks never received, unresolved complaints, and poor management responsiveness. This undermines professionalism score despite individual technician praise.
• DAMAGE LIABILITY: At least 3 reviews document property damage (burned wall, broken pipes, flooded cabinet) with company refusing responsibility or offering inadequate compensation.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued pricing complaints and service inconsistencies. No evidence of improvement over time.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 234 reviews with high-confidence data across all four dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with strong individual technician performance and professionalism but severely undermined by systemic pricing abuse and inconsistent quality control. The pricing dimension (42.0) is particularly well-evidenced with 89 explicit mentions and is the primary driver of the below-average overall score.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile, with enthusiastic praise from satisfied customers offset by serious, detailed complaints from others. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension: multiple reviews describe plumbers who were rude, condescending, cursing loudly, unprofessional in appearance, and unresponsive to legitimate complaints — including one egregious case where a plumber asked a customer to fraudulently return a sink he had broken. Pricing is the second most problematic area, with repeated complaints about bills arriving at double the quoted amount, excessive trip charges for unresolved work, and parts marked up dramatically above retail cost. Project completion is mixed — some jobs were completed efficiently and same-day, but several reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, warranty disputes that went unresolved, and a company that sent the same underperforming plumber back rather than making things right. Experience scores slightly higher because positive reviews do cite knowledgeable, skilled plumbers by name, but negative reviews describe wrong tools being used, failed repairs, and poor workmanship that caused flooding.

• Several positive reviews are vague and lack specific job details (e.g., 'I count this plumber among them', 'they are so nice'), which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• The business operates under multiple names (A Aart's Speedy Plumbing, Tim's Quality Plumbing, Tim's Plumbing) — this may obscure the true volume and distribution of reviews across platforms.
• One review explicitly notes a prior review was deleted, raising a concern about possible review suppression by the business.
• Most reviews older than 2021 (approximately 14 of 29) are outside the 12-month recency window; the most recent reviews (2023–2024) skew negative, suggesting possible quality decline over time.
• The 2023–2024 reviews include two 1-star reviews with highly specific, credible detail (flooding caused by failed installation, excessive charges beyond quoted price), which carry significant weight in scoring.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in customer experience, the multi-name business identity, and a credible allegation of review deletion.