Find Nearby Plumbers In Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Premier Plumbing draws a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, punctuality, and technical skill, which drives reasonably strong scores in professionalism and experience. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — document serious concerns including missed appointments with no communication, incorrect diagnoses charged at full price, abandoned work, and billing disputes, which significantly tempers all dimension scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different years describe charges they considered excessive, hidden fees, bait-and-switch quoting, and charges for work not performed, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left incomplete, recurring problems not resolved, and callbacks that were never honored. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in individual technician quality but persistent systemic issues in billing transparency, communication, and follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Three reviews dated 2016-05-03 and 2016-05-05 are nearly word-for-word identical regarding a boiler/Rinnai/Trane installation. These appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under similar 'Premier Plumbing' names across different geographic markets (Texas, California, South Carolina, Iowa, etc.). This significantly reduces the reliability of the aggregate score as it may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range (2006–2025), indicating that communication failures, no-shows, and billing disputes are not isolated incidents but recurring patterns over many years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A subset of 5-star reviews from 2021–2023 use generic praise with no specifics ('Great company,' 'Always good service,' 'Excellent service'). These add minimal evidentiary weight and were not used to inflate dimension scores.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews explicitly describe technicians removing fixtures or cutting into walls and then not returning to complete the job, which is a serious project completion red flag.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for work not performed, incorrect diagnoses billed as repairs, and prices significantly higher than competing quotes for identical work.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a reflection of any single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Premier Plumbing' name across different states, and that recurring negative patterns in billing, communication, and project completion are documented consistently across many years.

AM PM Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning over a decade, with many customers praising punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence across numerous technicians including Jose, Brian, Dax, Frankie, Clint, and others. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — many specifically tied to home warranty (AHS) jobs — describes a consistent pattern of inflated 'modification' charges ranging from $525 to $675+ for work customers and independent contractors deemed unnecessary or grossly overpriced, which materially drags down both the pricing and project completion scores. Communication failures, including no-shows, unreturned calls, and unresponsive office staff, appear repeatedly across multiple years and represent a genuine operational weakness. The professionalism score is tempered by multiple credible accounts of rude technicians, threatening behavior over payment, and poor follow-through on estimates and callbacks. Experience scores remain relatively higher because many positive reviews specifically cite skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but shoddy work complaints from a minority of reviewers prevent a top-tier score.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A notable cluster of reviews dated 2025-02-09 and 2025-03-11 show highly similar patterns — short, generic praise with initials appended (e.g., 'JG', 'G'), repetitive phrasing ('top notch', 'knowledgeable'), and several blank 5-star reviews with no text. Multiple reviews reference 'Brian and his team' with nearly identical language and the same appended initials, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized review activity. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• HOME WARRANTY SCAM PATTERN: At least 7 independent negative reviews (spanning 2023–2024) describe a near-identical scheme involving inflated 'modification' charges ($525–$675+) on AHS/home warranty jobs for parts customers and independent contractors deemed unnecessary or worth a fraction of the quoted price. This is a serious and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star and include suspected coordinated reviews. The negative reviews are concentrated in 2023–2024 and represent a meaningful share of substantive feedback. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) are given reduced weight but still inform long-term patterns.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews across different years cite unreturned calls, no-shows, unresponsive office staff, and failure to follow up on estimates — indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• BBB RATING: One reviewer explicitly states the company holds an 'F' rating on the Better Business Bureau, which corroborates the pattern of complaints about deceptive billing practices.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: At least 2 reviews appear to reference a different company or service entirely (e.g., an HVAC technician named Fernando at a veterinary hospital, and a reference to 'PM Plumbing and Mechanical' with HVAC services). These were excluded from scoring.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set and carries HIGH data confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible and recurring pattern of deceptive billing on home warranty jobs, suspected coordinated positive reviews in the most recent period, and documented communication failures — consumers using home warranty services in particular should exercise significant caution.

MD Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, reasonable pricing, and solid workmanship across many years of service. However, several serious negative reviews significantly temper the overall score: one reviewer describes a no-show emergency call with zero follow-up communication, another details a catastrophic new-home plumbing job with a near-fire incident and arrogant ownership, and a third describes a broken sink with the owner responding aggressively and refusing accountability. A pricing complaint emerged after a reported merger with Urban Design, where customers were charged for time the plumber was not on-site. The positive reviews are numerous but span a wide date range, with the most recent substantive reviews dating to 2023 and 2022, while the most damaging reviews are older — though the pattern of ownership conduct issues across multiple negative reviews is a meaningful signal.

• One review (rated 'unknown', 5 stars, 2016-05-04) contains no text and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• The business appears to have operated under multiple names: Grimes Plumbing, MD Plumbing, and later merged with Urban Design. Reviews span these different business identities, which may affect consistency of service quality over time.
• The 2021 negative review explicitly notes a pricing model change after the merger with Urban Design, suggesting the business may have undergone structural changes that affect comparability of older vs. newer reviews.
• The oldest negative reviews (2009, 2011, 2013) describe ownership-level conduct issues — aggression, hostility, and negligence — that are serious but may reflect a prior era of the business. However, similar themes of poor communication and dismissiveness appear in the 2018 negative review as well, suggesting these issues were not fully resolved.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current analysis date. Only two reviews (2022, 2023) are within the past two years, limiting confidence in the current state of the business.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and sentiment. Named technicians (Randy, Eric, Donnie, Mark) appear across multiple reviews, adding authenticity.

The WW Score of 72.1 is based on a reasonable volume of reviews with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution given the multi-name business history, a cluster of serious negative reviews describing ownership misconduct and project failures, and the fact that only 2 of 26 reviews are from the past two years.

Sean consistently receives praise for responsiveness and professionalism across all five reviews, with multiple customers noting same-day service, clear communication, and a willingness to address additional issues as they arose. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers explicitly stating jobs were finished thoroughly and one reviewer specifically noting he did not give up until the work was done. Experience is moderately supported, with references to knowledgeability, neat workmanship, and effective problem-solving on varied plumbing issues. Pricing data is limited to two reviews, both indicating fair and reasonable charges, including a specific mention of $150 for labor and parts, which is a positive signal but insufficient for high confidence. Overall, the picture is consistently positive but the small review pool limits the reliability of the score.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and may shift significantly as more reviews are collected.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution; however, reviews do contain specific details (job types, pricing, behaviors) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• No reviews older than 12 months from the most recent review date (2024-03-09), so recency weighting is not a concern here.
• Mild pattern similarity in phrasing ('I will recommend him', 'I would recommend him') across multiple reviews — not conclusive of fake reviews given the presence of specific details, but noted.

This score is based on a small but detail-rich set of recent reviews and should be considered a reasonable early indicator of quality, though it requires a larger review sample to be fully trusted.

Ron generally receives strong praise across professionalism, workmanship, and project follow-through, with multiple reviewers highlighting his punctuality, courteous demeanor, and willingness to honor original quotes even when jobs ran long. His technical skill is frequently noted, including carpentry, tiling, drywall, and electrical work, with several reviewers describing meticulous and thorough results. Pricing is viewed positively overall — he is described as fair and transparent — though at least one reviewer noted his hourly rate felt high, tempering the pricing score. A significant negative flag is a 1-star review describing Ron shouting at and hanging up on a potential client, which directly impacts the professionalism score. The vast majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2011–2017), which substantially reduces confidence in how representative this data is of current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 24 reviews are dated between 2011 and 2017. None fall within the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current quality or business practices.
• NEGATIVE PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENT: One reviewer (Jan 2016) explicitly describes Ron shouting at and hanging up on a potential client after misidentifying them as a referral company. This is a direct, specific account of unprofessional conduct and has been weighted accordingly.
• VAGUE/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Three reviews ('unknown', 'See above', 'Everything went great', 'Overall the meeting went very well', 'It went as discussed and expected') provide no actionable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC PRAISE: Several short 5-star reviews (e.g., 'HE IS EXALLANT IN EVERY WAY', 'AAA rating on Ron's services') lack specifics and may reflect low-effort or superficially positive submissions. These were treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• SOLO OPERATOR NOTE: Multiple reviews confirm Ron operates alone. While praised for consistency, this may affect availability and scalability for larger or time-sensitive projects.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high volume of reviews with usable detail, but is significantly undermined by the fact that all reviews are 7–13 years old, making it difficult to assess Ron's current performance with confidence.

All In One shows genuine strengths in hands-on craftsmanship and working collaboratively with homeowners, as evidenced by detailed positive reviews praising Jimmy's skill, honesty, and work ethic. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by two notable negative reviews: one describing a disorganized, unprepared estimate visit with no written quote, and another detailing a crew of questionable character, inflated material purchases, and a slow pace of work that blew the customer's budget. Pricing is a significant concern — while some customers found strong value, others experienced unexpected daily cash demands and unnecessary material purchases that felt exploitative. Project completion scores moderately well, with several reviews confirming jobs were finished satisfactorily, but the budget-overrun review raises legitimate concerns about scope management. Two reviews contained no usable text ('unknown') and were excluded from scoring.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no descriptive content — these were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• The majority of reviews are from 2013–2018, with only one review from 2018 and none from the past several years. This data is significantly dated and may not reflect current service quality.
• One review (2015-04-03, 3-star) describes serious financial misconduct: daily $500 cash demands, unnecessary material purchases billed to the customer, and a job taking twice as long as expected. This is a substantive red flag for pricing transparency and project management.
• One review (2016-10-19, 3-star) describes an estimate visit where the contractor arrived without a tape measure, wrote nothing down, and gave a vague verbal price — a clear professionalism concern.
• The 5-star review from 2015-07-03 reads more like general contractor advice than a specific review of this company's work, and offers no concrete details about a completed job. Its authenticity as a genuine customer review is questionable.
• No reviews are present from the past 5+ years, making the reliability of this score for current hiring decisions very low.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the age of all reviews (none more recent than 2018), the presence of two content-free reviews, one potentially non-genuine review, and two substantive negative accounts that raise real concerns about pricing transparency and professionalism — prospective customers should seek current references before hiring.