Find Nearby Plumbers In Rapid City, South Dakota

This contractor shows strong technical capability and project completion based on three reviews praising quick problem-solving and finished work. Pricing appears fair with two mentions of reasonable costs. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by one explicit 1-star review citing rudeness and unprofessionalism, which directly contradicts the positive reviews and creates substantial uncertainty. The small sample size (4 reviews) and conflicting signals limit confidence in the overall score.

• CRITICAL CONFLICT: One 1-star review explicitly states the company is 'rude' and 'completely unprofessional,' directly contradicting three 5-star reviews. This suggests either inconsistent service quality, different staff members, or potential fake reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of four reviews are from 2022 or earlier (over 2 years old). Only one review is from 2023. Limited recent data.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Score reliability is inherently limited.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Three reviews use nearly identical structure (5-star praise with generic 'highly recommend' language and minimal specific detail). Review 3 is notably more detailed and credible. Reviews 1 and 2 lack substantive specifics.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting reviews, small sample size, and age of most data. The professionalism dimension is particularly unreliable given the direct contradiction between positive and negative feedback.

Mr. Plumber demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and efficient problem-solving. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—multiple customers report excessive charges, lack of transparent breakdowns, and quotes substantially higher than competitors. Project completion shows mixed results, with several instances of missed appointments, delayed service, and unresolved follow-up issues. The company's overall score reflects a capable workforce undermined by business practices that prioritize revenue over customer value and reliability.

• PRICING RED FLAG: 18 mentions of pricing issues across 79 reviews (23% complaint rate). Customers consistently report charges 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Multiple reviews cite lack of transparent labor/parts breakdown.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple instances of missed appointments, rescheduling without notice, failure to follow up on callbacks, and unresolved damage claims spanning weeks/months.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: At least 3 reviews document significant installation errors (shower valves installed upside down, failed crimps causing flooding, misdiagnosis of water heater problem) requiring costly remediation.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are from Champion Home Services (HVAC/electrical), not Mr. Plumber Plumbing. Older Mr. Plumber reviews (2013-2020) show declining service quality trend. Two 1-star reviews from 2024 indicate ongoing issues.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Wide variance in customer experience—some report excellent service from named technicians (Chris, Brian, Justin), while others report poor service from same company, suggesting quality depends heavily on individual technician assignment.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews document failure to honor same-day emergency commitments, leaving customers without water/heat for extended periods.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 35-48 mentions, the pricing score (18 mentions) and project completion score (22 mentions) are based on fewer data points and show high variance. The company's pricing practices are a significant and consistent weakness that substantially reduces overall trustworthiness, despite individual technician competence. Customers should expect professional work but should obtain multiple quotes and clarify all costs in writing before engaging services.

Fred's Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant polarization in customer experiences. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple documented communication failures, no-shows, and rescheduling issues, though many reviews praise punctuality and courtesy when work is performed. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple customers reporting substantial overcharges, lack of itemized estimates, and aggressive upselling, though some reviews cite fair and reasonable rates. Project completion is inconsistent—many jobs are completed promptly and well, but several reviews document incomplete work, callbacks that weren't honored, and quality issues discovered later. Technical experience is generally strong, with customers praising problem-solving ability and workmanship quality. The company's score is significantly impacted by a cluster of serious complaints from 2009–2024 regarding communication breakdowns and billing practices.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization detected—32 reviews split into two distinct groups: ~20 five-star reviews praising service, and ~6 one-star reviews documenting serious failures. This is not a normal distribution and suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential data quality issues.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2024-10-04, 2023-11-25, 2021-04-23, 2019-07-26, 2016-09-26) document identical communication failures: no callbacks, no responses to voicemails, no-shows without notice. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 4 reviews (2014-06-24, 2013-07-18, and two 2024 reviews) explicitly report overcharging, lack of itemized bills, and aggressive upselling. One customer reported $1600 for a water heater replacement with no labor/parts breakdown. Another reported $5000 for a toilet installation.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2009-08-12 documents multiple incomplete repairs (washer not installed, stem not installed, improper installation of handheld adapter, hole left in house wall without insulation). Customer was charged for 2h 45m but technician was only present 1h 45m.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2024, 2023, and 2021, suggesting recent deterioration in service quality. Oldest positive reviews (2012–2014) may not reflect current operations.
• UNKNOWN REVIEWS: Two reviews dated 2014-12-19 and 2014-04-22 contain only 'unknown' text and cannot be analyzed—treated as neutral 5-star ratings but lack substantive data.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail, though this is offset by highly detailed negative reviews that appear credible.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 32 reviews, the extreme polarization (20 five-star vs. 6 one-star with no middle ground), documented systemic communication failures, and multiple independent reports of overcharging suggest either severe inconsistency in service delivery or data integrity issues. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects the mathematical average, but the underlying distribution indicates this company is high-risk; customers should request itemized written estimates in advance and verify communication protocols before hiring.

Loyal Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and skilled workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with two recent reviews (2023) explicitly criticizing lack of transparency, itemization, and unexpectedly high charges. Project completion is generally solid, though one 2023 review alleges incomplete work and dishonesty about outcomes. The company shows inconsistency: older reviews (2015–2021) are uniformly positive, while recent reviews (2023) reveal serious concerns about billing practices and work quality. This divergence suggests either a decline in service standards or a shift in business practices.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 2+ years old (2015, 2018, 2020, 2021). Two most recent reviews (2023) are highly negative, suggesting possible service degradation or changed practices.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Two 2023 reviews explicitly cite lack of transparency, no itemized bills, and unexpectedly high charges ($760 for simple faucet replacement). This contradicts older reviews praising 'fair price' and 'affordable' service.
• WORK QUALITY DISPUTE: One 2023 review alleges inexperienced plumbers, incomplete work, and dishonesty when complaints were raised. This is inconsistent with positive technical feedback in older reviews.
• SAMPLE BIAS: Only 7 reviews total; recent negative reviews may not represent full current picture, but they are concerning given recency.

This score should be treated with caution. While the WW Score of 72.8 reflects mixed evidence, the stark divergence between older positive reviews and recent negative reviews (particularly on pricing and work quality) suggests the company may be experiencing operational changes. The score is most reliable for identifying that pricing transparency is a genuine concern, but insufficient data from the past 12 months limits confidence in overall current performance assessment.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise based on multiple reviews praising punctuality, cleanliness, communication, and problem-solving ability. However, a critical 1-star review from 2021 describing incomplete work, leaking fixtures, and incorrect installations significantly impacts the overall score. While most recent reviews (2023-2024) are highly positive, the project completion dimension is undermined by explicit evidence of abandoned work and quality failures that required third-party remediation. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, but the severe completion failure creates substantial reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2021-05-07) reports incomplete job, leaking toilets, unhooked plumbing, and incorrect electrical work requiring other contractors to fix. This is a major red flag for project completion reliability.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Six of seven positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('excellent,' 'professional,' 'clean,' 'reliable,' 'recommend') with minimal specific detail, suggesting possible review inflation or template-based responses. However, the 2024 review and 2022 review provide more specific project details.
• RECENCY ISSUE: The most damaging review is from 2021 (3+ years old), but recent positive reviews (2023-2024) do not address whether completion issues have been resolved.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews emphasize reliability and follow-through, yet the 1-star review explicitly contradicts this with abandonment and rework requirements.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are uniformly positive, the documented project completion failure from 2021 combined with suspiciously generic phrasing in most positive reviews creates moderate uncertainty about true reliability; recommend requesting references and verifying completion practices before hiring.

AAA Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a deeply mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately — the majority of reviewers praise courteous, prompt, and friendly technicians by name (Rob, Jesse, Chad, Steve, Lee, Stan), but a meaningful minority of reviews describe serious failures including rude office staff, no-shows, missed callbacks, threatening customers with collections, and one incident of smoking on the job. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe being overcharged, receiving inconsistent quotes, or finding the same work done for a fraction of the price elsewhere — though a smaller number praise fair or upfront pricing. Project completion is also mixed — many jobs are described as completed thoroughly and on time, but there are credible, detailed accounts of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unfixed problem, work left incomplete after full payment ($27,000 job), and warranty disputes. Experience scores somewhat better, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe plumbers who did not know what they were doing or could not diagnose basic issues.

• 23 reviews contain no text (blank or single-character entries such as 'unknown', '.', 'l', 'well', 'great') and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute only to raw review count.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2023-06-10 and 2021-06-10 with no timestamps (only date) may indicate batch imports from a third-party platform rather than organic submissions — treat with moderate caution.
• Several highly positive reviews are generic and lack specifics (e.g., 'Great service', 'Very professional', 'Excellent experience overall') — these were counted for professionalism mentions but weighted conservatively.
• The review corpus spans from 2006 to 2025, meaning a large portion of reviews (pre-2023) are more than 12 months old. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show a notable deterioration in professionalism and project completion scores, suggesting the company's quality may have declined.
• The most recent high-detail negative review (Dec 2024, 1-star) describes an 8-year business relationship ending due to aggressive collections behavior, incompetent plumbers, and poor communication — this is given elevated weight due to recency and specificity.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, but the volume of generic 5-star reviews with no detail warrants conservative scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, 140 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the score's direction, but users should note that recent reviews trend more negatively and the score may overstate current service quality due to the weight of older positive reviews.