Find Nearby Plumbers In Rapid City, South Dakota

All Pro Plumbing has a large and highly polarized review base. The majority of reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Ifran, Eddie/Lalo, Brandon, Jerry, and others — for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and technical skill. However, a significant and recurring minority of negative reviews describe serious failures: no-shows without notification, ghosting after payment, incomplete work, overcharging (especially of elderly and vulnerable customers), and confrontational or dishonest office staff (particularly referencing 'Michelle' and 'Ifran' in separate negative contexts). Pricing is a mixed picture — many reviewers cite fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling gouged or misled on costs. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, and warranty promises that were never honored. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is frequently praised when work is actually completed, but is undermined by instances of misdiagnosis and substandard workmanship.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-09, 2025-05-18, and 2025-05-25 use nearly identical templated language ('arrived on time,' 'fixed the issue quickly,' 'very polite,' 'highly recommend') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique context. These appear to be generic, possibly fabricated 5-star reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Ifran came and did a thorough inspection...' (grey water leak, toilet) appears verbatim twice with dates 2024-09-19 and 2024-09-20. Similarly, the emergency kitchen sink leak review appears twice on 2024-09-10. These duplicates were counted once each.
• MULTIPLE CREDIBLE ACCOUNTS OF NO-SHOWS AND GHOSTING: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and the company did not call to reschedule or apologize. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege technicians kept cash payments without crediting the company, that promised refunds were never issued, that a warranty water heater check was cashed by the technician personally, and that discounts (first responder, veteran, senior) were promised but not applied. These are serious credibility and trust concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND WARRANTY FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, work that failed inspection, and warranty promises that were explicitly not honored when customers called back. This pattern significantly depresses the project completion score.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name 'Michelle' (described as an owner or manager) as dishonest, confrontational, or unresponsive. This suggests a systemic customer service issue at the administrative level, separate from individual technician quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2019 to present, with a strong concentration in 2024-2025. Older reviews (pre-2018) are sparse and have been given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued mixed patterns — both strong positive individual technician reviews and continued no-show and communication complaints.
• ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple different owners, managers, and operating locations (Bay Area CA, Camarillo CA, McHenry IL, Fresno CA, Reno NV, Texas, Florida, Indiana, and others). It is likely that 'All Pro Plumbing' is a name used by multiple unrelated businesses. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as submitted but users should be aware that this may not represent a single unified company.
• ROAD RAGE INCIDENTS: Two separate reviews (2024 and 2019) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by employees in marked company vehicles. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of fake or templated reviews inflating the positive signal, serious and credible recurring complaints about no-shows, financial misconduct, and incomplete work, and likely entity ambiguity across multiple unrelated businesses operating under the same name.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar names (A Plus Plumbing, AAA Paradise Plumbing, A2Z Atomic Plumbing, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and solid workmanship across hundreds of jobs. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15-18% of substantive reviews — describe serious failures including incomplete repairs, no-shows, billing disputes, hidden charges, rude owner behavior, and work that caused additional damage. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing rates they considered excessive or non-transparent, and several describing being charged without prior quotes. Project completion is also dragged down by recurring complaints about jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and technicians failing to return as promised.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span several distinct businesses (A Plus Plumbing in multiple states, AAA Paradise Plumbing, A2Z Atomic Plumbing, Mr. Plumber). Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews share the date 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 with generic, non-specific praise and no job details. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score direction is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — NOTABLE: One review (2024-06-09) is an elaborate original poem praising the company with no factual service details. This is atypical and may indicate a solicited or fabricated review.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A substantial portion of reviews predate 2022 and were given reduced weighting. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain both strong positives and several serious negatives.
• REPEATED NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe the same failure modes — no-shows, unreturned calls, incomplete work, and billing disputes — suggesting these are systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: At least three separate reviews explicitly describe the owner (referenced as Sal or Steve in different reviews) as rude, threatening, or dishonest. This is a significant professionalism flag.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviewers report being charged without prior quotes, receiving unexpected fees, or discovering overcharges. This materially suppresses the pricing score.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Several reviews describe technicians leaving jobs unfinished, failing to return with parts, or not honoring verbal commitments to complete work at no extra charge.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be treated with caution as a contractor-level assessment because the reviews likely represent multiple distinct business entities, contain suspected padded or fake reviews, and show systemic negative patterns that the high volume of generic positive reviews may be obscuring.

This review set spans multiple years and appears to cover at least two distinct business entities — 'American Plumbing Service' (associated primarily with William Llamas in the Menifee/Sun City, CA area) and 'America's Plumbing and Drains' (associated with Chris Pratt in what appears to be a Midwest/East Coast market) — as well as a third entity that handled home warranty work and generated a large cluster of extremely negative reviews centered on a rude female owner/receptionist named Chris or Christine Kastanos. The positive reviews (predominantly 2021–2025) paint a picture of skilled, punctual, honest technicians — particularly William — who deliver quality workmanship at fair prices. However, the large volume of 1-star reviews (roughly 40+ reviews) describing no-shows, rude staff, abandoned jobs, bogus charges, and outright hostile customer service interactions significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is mixed: several reviewers praised fair and competitive pricing while others cited excessive charges (e.g., $630 to snake a drain, $1,400 for a garbage disposal, $1,006 for a flange and wax ring). The experience dimension scores highest because the on-site technicians — across all entities — were consistently described as knowledgeable and skilled even in negative reviews.

• ENTITY CONFUSION WARNING: Reviews appear to cover at least two or three distinct businesses sharing similar names ('American Plumbing Service,' 'America's Plumbing and Drains,' and possibly a Michigan-based entity). Scores are therefore a blended average across potentially unrelated companies and should not be attributed to any single contractor without verification.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, and 2025-02-09 contain multiple blank-text 5-star entries (no review body). Blank 5-star reviews with no content are a known pattern of review padding and reduce confidence in the positive score cluster.
• RECENCY SPLIT: Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2021–2025 (primarily for William/American Plumbing Service CA). Negative reviews span 2011–2021 and appear concentrated around a different operator or ownership period. The score reflects this full historical record; the current operator (William) may perform significantly better than the blended score suggests.
• SEVERE CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN IN OLDER REVIEWS: Approximately 40 reviews (primarily 2013–2021) describe an identical pattern — a rude female owner/receptionist (named Chris, Christine, or Cindy), repeated no-shows, abandoned jobs, and hostile phone interactions. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents, and materially impacts the professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING OUTLIERS: At least three reviews cite specific charges that multiple reviewers and even a second-opinion plumber described as excessive or fabricated (e.g., unnecessary parts charges, $630 drain snake, $1,400 garbage disposal). One review explicitly documents a second plumber confirming that recommended parts were unnecessary. This warrants caution on the pricing dimension.
• ONE REVIEW explicitly states that American Plumbing Service (the CA entity) performed a water heater installation with at least 9 major code violations identified by a city inspector, requiring complete reinstallation by a competitor. This is a serious workmanship flag even though it is a single data point.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: 10+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were counted in total reviews analyzed but not used to score any dimension, per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability as a guide to any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly blends multiple distinct business entities across different geographies and ownership periods, making it impossible to cleanly attribute the negative or positive signals to one operator without independent verification.

Rapid Rooter has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians by name for being prompt, courteous, knowledgeable, and professional. However, a meaningful minority of reviews — roughly 20–25% — describe serious failures including no-shows, abandoned or incomplete work (unfinished concrete left for months), technicians being rude or aggressive, billing for work not performed, and at least one instance of a motor being installed incorrectly. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent by most reviewers, but several customers describe being overcharged, billed for mileage unexpectedly, or charged for incomplete service. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of jobs left unfinished, return visits not honored, and work that failed shortly after completion. The overall picture is of a company with capable technicians and a solid track record on routine drain jobs, but inconsistent quality control and customer service that varies significantly by technician and location.

• Multiple reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 with no specific detail (e.g., 'Amazing company very professional', 'Always goes the extra mile to help', blank text reviews with 5-star ratings) — these show hallmarks of potentially padded or low-effort reviews and were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• Three blank/empty review texts with 4–5 star ratings were excluded from substantive scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review ('Loved their food and the family arcade') appears to be a mistaken review for a different business entirely and was disregarded.
• Two nearly identical reviews from 2022-11-28 describing the same abandoned concrete job appear to be duplicate submissions by the same customer — counted as one incident.
• Several reviews are more than 5 years old (pre-2020); while included for pattern context, they were given reduced weight relative to reviews from 2023–2025.
• A pattern of rude or dismissive office/dispatch staff is noted across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, suggesting a systemic customer service issue rather than isolated incidents.
• At least one review describes a technician refusing to complete work, one describes a snake left in a drain causing $2,000+ in damage with no accountability, and one describes an incorrectly installed motor — these are serious workmanship and liability concerns.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the consistent minority of serious negative experiences involving incomplete work, unprofessional conduct, and billing disputes that suggest meaningful quality inconsistency.

The review set spans roughly 15 years (2006–2021), with the most recent and most damaging reviews concentrated in 2019–2021, which weigh more heavily per scoring rules. Professionalism scores moderately well across the bulk of older reviews — many customers praised punctuality, courtesy, and communication — but is significantly dragged down by serious incidents including a threatening voicemail from the owner, a no-call/no-show, unreturned calls, and a plumber who appeared dismissive and rushed. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers praised affordability and fair rates, while others flagged billing errors, overcharging by approximately $150, a rate of $120/hr described as above market, and a failure to honor quoted prices. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple reviews describe work that had to be redone, failed state inspection, a leak reappearing within an hour of a repair, shoddy workmanship requiring attorney involvement, and a technician spending three days reading an instruction manual. Experience scores similarly — while many older reviews describe competent and efficient work, the negative reviews reveal serious technical failures including incorrect installations, crooked pipe runs, and a failure to diagnose a simple blockage without repeated attempts.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2006–2015. The most recent reviews (2019 and 2021) are both 1-star and describe serious misconduct and incompetence. The contractor's current performance profile may be significantly worse than the historical average suggests.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the owner called from a private number and left a threatening voicemail about placing a lien on a customer's house after a dispute over poor work. This is a serious professionalism and ethical red flag.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE FLAG: At least three reviews describe work that failed inspection, leaked shortly after repair, or had to be entirely redone — indicating a pattern of quality control issues, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING INTEGRITY FLAG: Multiple reviews mention billing disputes including overcharging, failure to honor quoted rates, and sending a final bill before work was complete. One reviewer had a $150 overcharge; another had a billing error of one full hour.
• 7 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no usable text. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• No fake review pattern detected. Positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. Negative reviews are detailed and credible.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of reviews, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that the most recent reviews are strongly negative and suggest meaningful decline in service quality over time — prospective customers should weight the 2019–2021 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

Wolff's Plumbing and Heating shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between highly satisfied customers and severely dissatisfied ones. Professionalism scores are pulled down by documented failures in punctuality, follow-through, and responsiveness, though some employees (Rod, Ryan, Chaddick) receive individual praise. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, no-shows, and billing disputes. Pricing concerns are serious but limited in mention count, with documented overcharges and charges for incomplete visits. Technical skill appears solid when work is completed, but execution reliability is questionable.

• CRITICAL: Severe inconsistency suggests employee-dependent service quality. Positive reviews praise specific individuals (Rod, Ryan, Chaddick) while negative reviews also mention Rod as problematic—indicating either different Rods or significant performance variability.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: 2021 review documents alleged theft of RV fluid, overbilling (6 hours charged for 2 hours work), incomplete work despite billing, and abandonment of service relationship without proper communication.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2020-2021 (3-4 years old). Most recent review (2024) is positive. Unclear if company has improved or if negative customers simply stopped reviewing.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews document charges for incomplete visits, no-shows, and overbilling. Pattern suggests billing practices may not align with work completed.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention jobs not finished on first visit, delayed returns, or work left incomplete despite billing.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in reviews and serious allegations in older negative reviews. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects that while data exists across dimensions, the small sample size (6 reviews) and stark contradictions between positive and negative experiences limit predictive reliability. Recent positive review suggests possible improvement, but insufficient recent data to confirm trend.