Foundation
BenchmarkCompare companies
← Kansas City comparisons

FOUNDATION BENCHMARK

Which repair methods companies name on their own websites

64 of 115 (56%) reviewed company websites name at least one repair or concrete-lifting method. 47 of 115 (41%) name a pier method specifically (such as steel, push or helical piers). The source-linked records distinguish advertised methods from verified installation or engineering advice. Several methods can appear on one record, so method counts should not be added to estimate distinct companies.

Measured 2026-10-27 · 64 records naming a method / 115 reviewed websites.

Named methodPublic records with statementDenominatorObserved through
carbon-fiber reinforcement24115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
epoxy crack injection3115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
helical piers35115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
mudjacking7115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
polyjacking10115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
polyurethane foam injection15115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
push piers23115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
resistance piers2115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
slab piers3115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
steel I-beam bracing2115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
steel piers19115 reviewed websites2026-10-27
wall anchors37115 reviewed websites2026-10-27

How this was measured

Explicit provider service statements interpreted into a nullable method set. Each non-null field has a primary company source and observation date. Blocks and missing statements remain unknown.

Download the underlying company CSV · Full method and null handling

What this cannot tell you

A service page does not establish that a method is appropriate for a particular home, local soil or foundation type. Generic repair information is not treated as proof of installation. The reviewed sample prioritizes ranked firms and is not a census.

Compare contractors in your metro. Use the statement sources on each record and ask the contractor for current written terms.