Find Nearby Plumbers In Sioux Falls, South Dakota

King's Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on explicit customer feedback. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, cordial demeanor, and owner supervision. Project completion is well-documented with customers highlighting reliable job completion and follow-through. Pricing receives positive but qualified feedback—customers note fair value and reasonable rates, though one review acknowledges they are not the cheapest option. Experience is evidenced by mentions of quality workmanship, top-tier materials, and successful handling of both residential and commercial projects. However, the overall WW Score confidence is MODERATE rather than HIGH due to the small sample size (6 reviews) and the age of most reviews (4 of 6 are from 2017–2019, with only 1 from 2024).

• Small sample size: Only 6 reviews analyzed. Scores are less reliable with fewer than 10 reviews.
• Recency concern: 4 of 6 reviews are from 2017–2019 (5+ years old). Only 1 recent review from 2024. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings is unusual and limits ability to assess weaknesses.
• Limited specificity in some reviews: Several reviews use generic praise ('excellent,' 'outstanding') without detailed examples of what was fixed or how problems were solved.

This WW Score of 87.2 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (6 reviews) and the age of most data. The score reflects consistently positive feedback, but the lack of recent reviews and absence of any critical perspectives limits confidence in how well it represents current performance. Additional recent reviews would significantly strengthen reliability.

Summit Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, the company shows significant variability in project completion reliability, with numerous reports of missed appointments, poor follow-up communication, and delayed estimates that substantially impact overall trustworthiness. Pricing feedback is mixed—while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, a notable segment reports unexpectedly high charges and lack of transparency in fee structures. The company excels when actively engaged but struggles with administrative consistency and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Appointment no-show pattern detected across multiple reviews spanning 2016-2025. At least 12 distinct reviews report missed appointments, failed callbacks, or scheduling failures with no communication. This is a systemic operational issue.
• CRITICAL: Follow-up communication failures documented repeatedly. Multiple customers report being unable to obtain promised estimates, callbacks, or status updates despite multiple contact attempts over weeks.
• Pricing transparency concerns: Several reviews (2024, 2022, 2011) report unexpectedly high charges, lack of itemization, and disputes over service fees. One customer paid ~$600 for <1 hour faucet installation; another charged $100+ for 10-15 minute furnace inspection.
• Quality control inconsistency: A few reviews report incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, reversed water lines, and contamination (oil/gas in toilet tank). These suggest occasional lapses in technical execution or quality assurance.
• Home warranty company friction: Multiple reviews indicate problems when company is assigned via home warranty—billing disputes, authorization issues, and poor coordination with warranty providers.
• Recency note: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) show continued appointment/communication issues, indicating problems persist despite company's long history.
• Positive review clustering: Approximately 60% of reviews are 5-star with generic praise; however, these are distributed across genuine specific details (names, job types, timelines), reducing fake review suspicion. The 1-2 star reviews are highly specific and credible, suggesting real operational failures rather than review manipulation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism when actively engaged, the high frequency of appointment failures, communication breakdowns, and follow-up issues across a 9-year review span indicates serious operational reliability problems that directly contradict the positive dimension scores. Customers should expect quality work but should prepare for scheduling frustration and verify all commitments in writing.

Jensen Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous staff across 38 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 22 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion reliability is mixed (28 mentions, 76.3 score) with several documented instances of missed appointments, incomplete work, and follow-through failures. Pricing presents the most significant concern (12 mentions, 71.4 score), with multiple complaints about unexpected cost increases, high service call fees, and perceived overcharging during emergencies, though some reviews praise competitive rates. The company excels in emergency response and technical skill but struggles with communication consistency and pricing transparency.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews (2021-03-02, 2021-03-08, 2022-11-29, 2023-08-11) document significant pricing disputes, unexpected cost increases, and aggressive collection practices. One customer reported being charged $1,500 for 10 inches of pipe replacement; another paid $175 for a diagnostic call with no work performed.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Three detailed negative reviews (2021-03-08, 2020-10-15, 2021-03-02) describe missed appointments without notification, incomplete work, and failure to follow through on promised callbacks. One customer waited weeks for a water fountain installation with multiple no-shows.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 2022-11-29 review documents systematic communication failures—customer not informed of delays, rescheduling, or inspection scheduling; Todd only communicated promptly when payment was overdue.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2024-2025, 38 of 56 reviews) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail, while older reviews (2018-2022) contain more substantive complaints. This temporal clustering warrants caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple recent 5-star reviews use similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'responsive,' 'great experience') with minimal specificity. However, older reviews provide detailed narratives, suggesting genuine variation rather than systematic fabrication.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: 2021-12-16 review alleges Todd uses city inspector calls as intimidation tactic. 2021-03-02 review questions 'ethical business practices' during emergency situations with exorbitant pricing.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 38+ mentions, the pricing dimension (only 12 mentions) and project completion reliability (multiple documented failures) significantly drag the overall score. The stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and older detailed complaints suggests either genuine business improvement or review recency bias. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written quotes and clear communication agreements before engaging this company, particularly for complex or emergency work.

Michael's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, which drives solid professionalism and experience scores. However, several detailed 1-star reviews describe serious failures: incomplete work, unresolved leaks requiring multiple return visits, ignored callbacks, warranty disputes, and at least one instance of an elderly customer being charged for a job that was not properly completed. These negative reviews are highly specific and credible, significantly pulling down the project completion score. Pricing feedback is generally favorable among those who mentioned it, with multiple reviewers calling rates fair or reasonable. The overall picture is of a contractor who performs well on straightforward jobs but has a documented pattern of poor follow-through on complex or problematic work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'It went very well and did a great job.' with a 5-star rating appears twice on the exact same date (2020-11-11). One instance has been treated as a duplicate and effectively discounted.
• GENERIC/LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 1-3 words (e.g., 'Perfect!!!', 'Excellent job', 'Great job.', 'Perfectly.', 'First class service!', 'Done well and quickly', 'excellent service.'). These provide minimal usable signal and may inflate positive sentiment without substantive evidence.
• UNKNOWN REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no descriptive content. These have been excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2022-05-03). Most reviews date from 2015-2020, with only one review from 2022 and one from 2021. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN: Four detailed 1-star reviews (2013, 2018 x2, 2020 x2) describe incomplete work, ignored warranty claims, repeated failed repair attempts, no-shows, and unresponsive management. These are highly specific and credible and represent a meaningful minority of the review pool.
• LEGITIMACY CONCERN: One 1-star reviewer (2018) claims the business entity 'Michael's Plumbing Services' was dissolved by the State of Tennessee as of 02/13/2013 and that the business was operating without a valid registration. This has not been verified but is a serious flag if accurate.

The WW Score of 74.2 is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describing incomplete work and poor follow-through, a cluster of uninformative generic reviews, duplicate and 'unknown' entries, and the fact that most reviews are more than two years old.

Gary's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with courteous, responsive technicians who communicate well and show up on time. However, the company is significantly hampered by widespread pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite charges that are 50-100% above competitor quotes for identical work, with many customers feeling overcharged or misled. Project completion is generally solid, though some callbacks and incomplete work issues are documented. Technical expertise is evident, but pricing practices substantially undermine overall customer satisfaction and trust.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging is the dominant complaint across 67 reviews. Examples include $750 for a $12 part replacement, $4,700 vs. $2,000 for water heater installation, $950 vs. $516 for pressure valve replacement, and $600+ for jobs taking 30 minutes. This is not isolated—it is pervasive.
• FLAT-RATE BILLING OPACITY: Multiple reviews criticize the company's flat-fee pricing model without itemized breakdowns. Customers report being unable to understand what they are paying for, and the company refuses to provide labor/parts/hours details.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE STRATEGY: The $40-$70 diagnostic fee is used as a barrier to comparison shopping. Customers report being locked in after paying the fee, then receiving inflated quotes. Some competitors waive this fee; Gary's does not.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many technicians are praised (Shane, Matt, Jeremy, Brandon, Craig, Jimmy), others are reported as rude, dismissive, or dishonest. One review describes a technician yelling and calling 911 falsely; another describes condescending behavior toward a 90-year-old client.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & CALLBACKS: Multiple reviews report jobs left unfinished, requiring second plumbers to complete work. One customer had to hire another plumber after Gary's failed to fix a furnace issue; another had a leak recur in the exact same location within 3 months.
• MISDIAGNOSIS & UNNECESSARY UPSELLS: Several reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs that were unnecessary or incorrect. Examples: recommending $3,000 in repairs when only a $10 part was needed; recommending septic pumping when the issue was a simple clog; recommending a $1,300 toilet replacement when a $35 fill valve was the solution.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE FAILURES: Multiple reviews report poor after-hours responsiveness. One customer reported a technician sounding intoxicated on a weekend emergency call; another reported no callback for 4+ hours on a weekend sewage backup.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: One review explicitly states the company does not guarantee scheduled appointments—emergency cases are prioritized and scheduled appointments are cancelled without notice.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews report unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and unresponsive management. One customer reported leaving 3 messages with no callback; another reported emailing and calling with no response.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Several reviews use language suggesting deliberate deception: 'ripped off,' 'fraud,' 'lied,' 'crooks,' 'trying to rip me off.' One review describes a technician deliberately turning on a faucet to cause water damage, then calling 911 falsely.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews span 2009–2025, with significant clustering in 2020–2025. This suggests the pricing and service issues are ongoing, not historical.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: The majority of reviews appear genuine with specific details, named technicians, and varied complaint patterns. No obvious fake review clustering detected. However, some very brief 5-star reviews with no detail ('Went great,' 'Fine1 No problems') may be placeholder entries.

This WW Score of 72.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 48–89 mentions each). However, the score masks a critical structural problem: Gary's Plumbing excels at professionalism and technical skill but systematically overcharges customers by 50–100% relative to competitors. The company's pricing practices are so pervasive and well-documented that they substantially undermine the overall score. Customers should expect professional service but should absolutely obtain multiple quotes and be prepared to pay significantly more than market rate. The score reflects what customers receive (good work, good attitude) but not what they pay for it (often excessive).

K&K Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capabilities, with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by numerous documented instances of rude, dismissive, and unprofessional communication from staff and ownership, particularly when handling customer inquiries and complaints. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable. The company shows inconsistent service quality—some customers report exceptional experiences while others describe being ghosted, talked down to, or treated dismissively. The pattern of negative professionalism reviews spans from 2011 to 2023, suggesting systemic communication and attitude issues rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) document rude, dismissive, and unprofessional communication from staff and ownership. This is a recurring pattern across years 2011-2023, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Several reviews describe being 'ghosted'—customers report multiple unanswered calls, missed appointments without notice, and failure to return voicemails. Examples: 2019-01-17, 2017-08-21, 2017-12-05, 2013-07-30.
• CRITICAL: Ownership/management defensiveness documented in multiple reviews. Customers report being told 'you are being rude' when asking legitimate business questions (2014-12-17, 2014-11-12), and one review describes owner calling customer's cell phone unsolicited after complaint (2014-12-17).
• CONCERN: One review (2020-06-17, appears twice identically) alleges dangerous driving behavior in company truck—attempted to run reviewer off road at 50+ mph. This is a serious safety and liability concern, though unverified.
• CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe work quality issues requiring callbacks or additional repairs: incomplete caulking leaving wall holes (2019-01-17), cracked tile not noted (2019-01-17), lost gasket during install (2014-12-17), sloppy installation (2014-12-17).
• CONCERN: Warranty company referral reviews show pattern of conflict-of-interest behavior. Multiple customers report K&K refusing to honor warranty work or charging extra fees, with suggestions that K&K prefers non-warranty jobs for higher margins (2019-11-23, 2020-06-23, 2019-01-17).
• CONCERN: Two reviews (2022-03-24 appear nearly identical with same date/similar content) describe Frank's 'bizarre' and 'unprofessional' email communications regarding water heater leak responsibility, with one reviewer questioning his mental state.
• NOTE: Several reviews contain minimal text ('unknown', '.', 'Perfectly', 'It went well') making detailed assessment impossible. These are counted but contribute minimal evidence.
• NOTE: Recency analysis shows negative professionalism reviews continue through 2023 (most recent: 2023-04-03), indicating ongoing issues despite company's long history.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (176 reviews), the company exhibits a stark and persistent bifurcation between technical competence (high) and interpersonal professionalism (low). The professionalism dimension is dragged down by a consistent 15+ year pattern of documented rude communication, ghosting, and dismissiveness from staff and ownership. Customers seeking reliable technical work may be satisfied, but those requiring responsive, courteous communication should seek alternatives. The score reflects this mixed reality but may understate the severity of communication issues for customers who prioritize professional treatment.