Find Nearby Plumbers In Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Jetter Clean demonstrates strong project completion and technical expertise, with all three reviews confirming jobs were finished successfully and efficiently. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by one damaging 1-star review from 2019 describing poor customer service from a staff member named Luke, which directly contradicts the positive experiences in the other two reviews. Pricing appears fair based on one explicit comparison showing better value than a licensed plumber. The limited review volume (only 3 reviews) and significant age disparity (one review from 2017, one from 2019, one from 2024) reduce overall confidence in this score.

• Only 3 total reviews analyzed — insufficient volume for high-confidence scoring
• Significant recency gap: two reviews are 5+ years old (2017, 2019); only one recent review from 2024
• Stark contradiction in professionalism dimension: one 5-star review praising service speed vs. one 1-star review criticizing staff attitude and responsiveness — suggests inconsistent service quality or potential personnel issues
• No mention of pricing in 2 of 3 reviews; pricing score based on single anecdotal comparison rather than explicit quote or invoice transparency
• Limited data on communication, punctuality details, and appearance — inferred from context only

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (n=3) and significant temporal gaps in data. The stark contradiction between positive and negative professionalism feedback suggests service quality may be inconsistent, and the score may not reliably predict future performance without additional recent reviews.

Rogers Plumbing and Heating scores well on professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising staff attitude, communication, and helpfulness across different jobs. Project completion is generally positive — work was finished and a defective heater was resolved through follow-through with the manufacturer — though the score is tempered by the fact that one job required a callback to fix a non-working unit. Pricing is the weakest dimension: one reviewer noted a hidden fee added without prior notice (1-star complaint), while another acknowledged the HVAC system was expensive but competitive, and a third implied reasonable pricing — resulting in a mixed and conservative score. Experience is supported by only two reviews but reflects genuine technical competence and customer education. With only 4 total reviews, all scores carry limited statistical weight and should be interpreted cautiously.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should not be treated as a definitive assessment.
• One review (2020) explicitly describes a hidden fee added without customer notification, which is a meaningful pricing integrity concern.
• The most recent review is from November 2024; two reviews are from 2019–2020 and may not reflect current business practices.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 5 years and should be considered a preliminary signal only — significantly more review data is needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable representation of contractor quality.

Always Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across its review history. On the positive side, a substantial number of reviewers praised punctuality, friendliness, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship — with multiple repeat customers citing consistent satisfaction over years. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes serious failures: missed appointments without notice, gas leaks caused by faulty installation, a six-month incomplete job, poor callback responsiveness, undisclosed fees, and unprofessional conduct. The negative reviews are specific and detailed, lending them high credibility and significantly pulling down scores in professionalism and project completion. Pricing scores are moderate-positive overall, but one review flagged a lack of transparency around written estimates and cash-only upfront payment requirements. The review base spans nearly two decades, and the most recent reviews (2022–2023) include both a positive and a negative experience, suggesting inconsistency persists.

• 5 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• 2 reviews contain only punctuation ('.') or are otherwise blank — excluded from scoring.
• Several older 5-star reviews (2013–2016) use very similar language praising Fred Deutsch following Cary Granite referrals — possible referral-cluster bias, though reviews contain enough specific detail to be considered genuine.
• Two reviews from April 2010 (one 5-star, two 1-star) were posted within days of each other and may reflect a dispute or coordinated review activity — treated with reduced weight.
• Review base spans 2005–2023 (18 years). The majority of reviews are older than 3 years. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2022–2023), limiting recency confidence.
• Multiple serious negative reviews describe gas leaks from faulty installation, a 6-month incomplete job, and repeated no-shows — these are safety-relevant findings that materially reduce project completion and experience scores.
• The 2011 detailed negative review describing post-installation gas leaks at multiple connection points is a significant safety flag and was weighted heavily in the project completion and experience dimensions.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 18 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in pattern detection, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in service quality, the age of most reviews, and the presence of serious safety-related complaints that suggest inconsistent technician performance across different operators under the Always Plumbing name.

Comfort Heroes demonstrates mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores reasonably well (72.5) with many reviews praising friendly, courteous technicians who explain work clearly and show up promptly. However, pricing is a critical weakness (38.0), with overwhelming evidence of severe overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, hidden fees, and costs 2-4x higher than competitors. Project completion is moderate (65.0), with several reports of incomplete work, callbacks that never materialized, and jobs requiring third-party contractors to finish. Experience/workmanship is solid (78.0) when work is actually completed, but this strength is undermined by pricing and completion issues. The company's overall WW Score of 62.3 reflects a business that may deliver quality work but systematically overcharges customers and has significant follow-through problems.

• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: 26 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, price gouging, bait-and-switch tactics, hidden fees, and costs 2-4x competitor rates. This is the dominant negative pattern in the dataset.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews report unfinished jobs, failed callbacks, and customers forced to hire other contractors to complete work (e.g., drain cleaning requiring Roto-Rooter, water heater issues requiring multiple visits).
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Several reviews describe misleading estimates, false claims about required travel/work scope, and attempts to silence negative reviews via 'hush money' settlements with non-disparagement clauses.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Reports of unresponsive answering service, poor communication, refusal to provide itemized billing, and dismissive responses to complaints.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: Multiple reviews report water damage, yard damage from poor grading/backfill, cracked concrete, and damaged fixtures with inadequate remediation.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: One review alleges employee misconduct (going through personal items, handling firearms without permission). Another suggests intentional misdiagnosis to generate repeat service calls.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are from 2018-2023, but recent reviews (June 2025) show both strong 5-star praise and serious complaints, indicating ongoing inconsistency.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several empty/blank reviews with 5-star ratings (dates 2025-05-26, 2025-05-10) suggest possible review manipulation. However, detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and dates appear authentic.

This WW Score of 62.3 is highly reliable due to large sample size (67 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, particularly the overwhelming evidence of pricing abuse. However, the score masks a critical business model issue: technicians may be competent and professional, but the company systematically overcharges customers by 100-300%, uses deceptive sales tactics, and has poor project follow-through. Customers should expect high-quality work but at significantly inflated prices and with substantial risk of incomplete service or pressure to pay for unnecessary work.

Frisbees demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising specific staff members for knowledge, friendliness, and thoroughness. However, the company is significantly undermined by systemic operational failures including missed appointments, poor follow-up communication, and inconsistent project execution. Pricing practices are a major concern, with multiple customers reporting unexpected charges, high service call fees ($75-$85 flat rates), and what some characterize as overcharging for unnecessary work. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, older reviews reveal chronic issues with scheduling reliability, communication breakdowns, and billing transparency that suggest ongoing structural problems.

• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple customers (2024, 2021, 2020, 2019) report being charged for unnecessary parts/services or excessive labor rates. One customer explicitly called the company 'thieves' for replacing toilet components that didn't need replacement and charging $265/hr. Another reported being charged $393.78 for follow-up work that should have been completed during initial installation.
• MISSED APPOINTMENTS & NO-SHOWS: At least 5 reviews document technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments or arriving outside agreed windows, with some customers waiting 3+ hours with no communication.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recurring pattern of unanswered voicemails, unreturned calls, and service department failures to follow up on customer issues. One customer reported waiting weeks for callback on parts availability; another waited months for a project quote response.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe incomplete or incorrect work requiring callbacks (water heater vent installation, furnace rewiring errors, debris left in new plumbing lines, jetted tub installation failures).
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY: Customers report receiving non-itemized bills, unexpected charges, and disputes over labor costs. One customer was charged $75 flat fee for a service call where no work was performed.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Recent reviews (2024-2025) show marked improvement in professionalism and service quality compared to 2012-2023 reviews, suggesting either genuine operational changes or potential review manipulation. The stark contrast warrants caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2024-2025 reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise ('excellent service,' 'great job,' 'highly recommend') and minimal specific detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews from earlier years. This distribution is atypical and suggests possible review inflation.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE REFUSAL: One 2019 review documents the company refusing emergency after-hours service to a new customer despite offered premium payment.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence and significant caution. While recent 2024-2025 reviews suggest improved operations, the company has a documented history of systemic failures in scheduling, communication, billing transparency, and quality control spanning over a decade. The stark improvement in recent reviews combined with their generic nature raises concerns about review authenticity. Customers considering Frisbees should independently verify pricing in writing, confirm appointment details in writing, and be prepared for potential billing disputes. The company's technical competence is evident, but operational reliability remains questionable based on historical patterns.

Hander Inc shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While professionalism scores moderately at 68 (13 mentions), reviews reveal mixed experiences with punctuality, communication, and staff attitude—some technicians are described as courteous and responsive, while others are rude or unresponsive. Project completion is particularly weak at 58 (11 mentions), with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, callbacks that took weeks, and jobs requiring multiple visits to fix initial errors. Pricing is problematic at 58 (8 mentions), with customers reporting hidden charges, inflated travel time billing, and work performed that wasn't requested. Experience scores 65 (9 mentions), reflecting inconsistent technician skill levels—the company itself acknowledged sending lower-skilled workers first and only deploying experienced technicians after complaints. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects a contractor with serious reliability and quality concerns.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: Review from 2016-04-05 documents a major gas leak left in home with young children present—valve was never tightened, discovered only after emergency call to competitor. This represents severe quality control failure.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews (2016-04-05, 2014-10-15, 2012-09-17) document jobs requiring multiple callbacks and corrections, suggesting systemic quality control problems.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Several reviews (2017-10-16, 2015-07-22, 2013-04-07, 2014-08-21) report unexpected charges, hidden fees, or billing for work not completed—indicates potential pricing transparency issues.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple customers report difficulty getting callbacks and follow-up (2014-08-21, 2012-09-17), suggesting poor customer service infrastructure.
• STAFF QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Company explicitly acknowledged (2016-04-05 review) using lower-skilled technicians first, only sending experienced staff after complaints—this is a red flag for deliberate cost-cutting at customer expense.
• VERY OLD REVIEWS: 18 of 27 reviews are from 2014 or earlier (7+ years old). Only 3 reviews from past 3 years. Recent data is extremely limited.
• SUSPICIOUS MINIMAL REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only punctuation or single words ('.' rated 5.0, 'lasted 14 years' rated 4.0, 'not well' rated 1.0, 'Job went good' rated 5.0)—these lack substantive detail and may inflate positive ratings artificially.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: Several 5-star reviews are generic ('very good', 'awesome', 'very satisfied') without concrete details, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific—suggests possible review manipulation or selection bias.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 27 reviews, the dataset is heavily skewed toward reviews older than 7 years (67% pre-2015), providing limited insight into current operations. The presence of several suspicious minimal reviews and generic praise raises concerns about data quality. Most critically, documented safety failures (gas leak), systemic completion issues, and billing disputes across multiple independent reviews suggest genuine operational problems, not isolated incidents. The moderate overall confidence reflects both adequate mention counts and serious substantive concerns that warrant skepticism of any positive claims about this contractor.