Find Nearby Plumbers In Montgomery, Alabama

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent positive mentions of punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 48 reviews. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 26 reviews, with technicians praised for thoroughness and knowledge. Project completion is solid with 28 mentions showing jobs finished on time and callbacks honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness with 13 mentions revealing serious concerns: multiple customers report being charged substantially above quoted prices, pressure to purchase unnecessary services, and what some describe as overcharging for simple repairs. The presence of 4 one-star reviews (out of 67 total) specifically citing pricing deception and unprofessional billing practices substantially impacts overall trustworthiness despite otherwise strong performance metrics.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Four 1-star reviews explicitly cite overcharging, failure to honor quotes, and pressure sales tactics. One customer was charged 60% above quoted price; another paid $478 for a 1-hour toilet reseat; a third was quoted $1,000 for a $380 water heater installation. These are not isolated complaints.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews mention technicians (Cole, Carrol) who failed to follow customer instructions regarding authorization before repairs, leading to disputes and collection agency involvement.
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Recent reviews (June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise and minimal detail, while older reviews (2011-2019) contain more specific narratives and balanced criticism. This pattern suggests possible review manipulation or selection bias in recent submissions.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings), reducing data quality.
• MIXED COMPANY IDENTITY: Reviews reference both '100% Plumbing' and 'Cole Plumbing' - unclear if same entity or different contractors, affecting score reliability.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by high-mention counts, the pricing dimension reveals a pattern of customer disputes that contradicts the overall positive rating. The recent flood of generic 5-star reviews without detail, combined with older detailed complaints about billing practices, suggests the overall score may not reflect current customer experience accurately. Customers should specifically inquire about pricing transparency and obtain written quotes before engaging this contractor.

This contractor demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Project completion is the standout strength, with all five reviews explicitly confirming timely, thorough work including follow-through on additional improvements. Professionalism is well-documented through punctuality, cleanliness, and courteous communication. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable and fair. However, the overall confidence is moderated by the small sample size (5 reviews) and significant age of reviews—most are from 2015–2022, with only one from the past 12 months, limiting recency validation.

• Review age concern: 4 of 5 reviews are older than 2 years (2015, 2019, 2022). Only 1 review from recent period. Current service quality cannot be fully validated.
• Small sample size: Only 5 reviews analyzed. WW Score should be treated as preliminary and updated as more recent reviews accumulate.
• Potential name inconsistency: Reviews reference both 'Wes' and 'Dave Packard' as primary service providers. Unclear if same business or different operators.

This score should be treated as preliminary due to limited sample size and review age. The contractor shows strong historical performance, but recent validation is insufficient—recommend collecting additional reviews from the past 12 months before making high-confidence decisions.

Anthony's Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate well, arrive on time, and go above and beyond. Project completion is also generally solid, with most jobs finished same-day or within the promised timeframe, though a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes work that failed shortly after completion and a company unwilling to honor callbacks or warranties — a significant drag on this dimension. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe rates as fair or affordable, a notable and recurring pattern of complaints cites prices as outrageous, bait-and-switch quoting (phone quote vs. on-site quote), and charges perceived as exploitative — particularly for elderly or emergency customers. The score reflects a genuinely capable and often excellent service operation that is undermined by inconsistent pricing practices and occasional failures to stand behind completed work.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe a significant gap between phone/advertised quotes and on-site prices. Examples include a $69 advertised special ballooning to $600, a $150 phone quote becoming $500 on arrival, and a $55 job becoming $100 on-site. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe the company refusing to honor warranty work or return for the same recurring issue within the warranty period, citing being 'too busy' or claiming the warranty had just expired. This materially impacts the project completion score.
• PRICING EXPLOITATION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe what they characterize as price gouging of vulnerable customers, including an 80-year-old on a fixed income and a 70-year-old family member charged $1,600 for a 3-hour job. One review describes a $400 charge for a 10-minute job using $5 in parts.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements or expensive services when simpler fixes were all that was needed (e.g., $775 garbage disposal replacement for a loose fitting, $950 toilet flange quote vs. $200 from a competitor, recommending full pipe replacement before checking a simple washer).
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 38 reviews contained no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence slightly inflates the apparent star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to June 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2022 onward. Older reviews (pre-2018) reflect what appears to be a smaller, owner-operated business; more recent reviews reflect a larger team with multiple named technicians. Scores are weighted toward recent reviews.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The review praising 'Brandon' for water heater phone troubleshooting appears to be posted twice with nearly identical text under different dates (2022-09-10 and 2022-12-20), suggesting a possible duplicate or copied review.
• ONE EXTREME NEGATIVE: One review (2016) contains a profanity-laced alleged response from the owner directed at a female customer. If authentic, this is a serious professionalism concern, though it is a single isolated incident from nearly a decade ago and the overall pattern does not corroborate this behavior.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, consumers should weight the pricing dimension concerns heavily, as the pattern of quote inflation and warranty refusal is consistent, multi-year, and credible — meaning the true pricing experience may be worse than the score of 63 suggests for customers in urgent or emergency situations.

Regal Plumbing scores strongly across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — nearly every reviewer mentioned punctuality, courteous communication, and a positive customer-facing attitude. Pricing transparency was highlighted in multiple reviews, with one reviewer specifically appreciating a worst-case-scenario quote that came in under budget, and another calling the service 'extremely affordable.' Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing problems found and fixed quickly, a warranty honored past its date, and no mentions of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience and workmanship were affirmed across several reviews, including handling a described 'difficult situation' with finesse and correctly diagnosing issues on the first visit. The overall score is tempered by the small total review count and the fact that five of seven reviews are more than four years old.

• Only 7 total reviews — small sample size limits statistical reliability of the WW Score.
• 5 of 7 reviews are dated 2016 to 2019, making them 5 to 8+ years old. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2024). Recency weighting significantly reduces confidence in current performance.
• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• No negative experiences, complaints, or constructive criticism appear in any review. This may reflect genuine quality but could also reflect a non-representative sample of customers who chose to leave reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and predominantly dated review set — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Stewart Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on schedule and callbacks honored. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about rates substantially above market average—often 2-3x competitor pricing. While the company delivers quality work and professional service, the high cost structure creates substantial customer dissatisfaction that materially impacts overall trustworthiness despite strong execution on core plumbing services.

• PRICING PATTERN: 28 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. 15+ reviews cite prices as 'outrageous,' 'too expensive,' or 'double/triple market rate.' This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• PRICE-QUALITY DISCONNECT: Multiple reviews acknowledge good work quality but express strong objection to pricing (e.g., 'great service but too expensive,' 'quality work at unreasonable prices'). This suggests pricing, not competence, drives negative sentiment.
• SERVICE CALL FEES: Multiple complaints about $75-$89 diagnostic/trip fees charged even when customer declines work. Several reviews note competitors offer free estimates.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Several reviews mention aggressive upselling of 'VIP packages' and membership programs, sometimes before addressing the primary issue.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 12 one-star reviews (2024-2015) predominantly cite pricing abuse, poor accountability for failed work, and unprofessional behavior. Notable: one review alleges discrimination based on property location (Frazer); another describes failed repair with refusal to take responsibility.
• FAILED WORK ACCOUNTABILITY: 3 reviews describe incomplete or failed repairs (tub drain gasket glued but leak persisted; faucet soldering damaged internal washer; camera inspection went up vent instead of drain). Company response was poor in at least 2 cases.
• RECENCY BIAS CONSIDERATION: Most recent reviews (2025, late 2024) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2022-2015) contain more critical detail and pricing complaints. This may indicate review selection bias or improved recent performance, but cannot be confirmed.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain minimal detail ('Great crew!', 'Excellent service', 'Highly recommend') with no specifics. While not necessarily fake, they provide limited evidentiary value.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 13 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text. These cannot be analyzed for dimension-specific evidence and suggest possible review platform artifacts.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence (HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension significantly depresses the overall score and reflects genuine customer dissatisfaction documented across 22+ years of reviews. The company delivers quality work and professional service, but pricing practices create substantial trust issues that should weigh heavily in contractor selection decisions. Customers should expect to pay premium rates and should obtain multiple quotes before committing.

Clark Heating & Air demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most recent reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, pricing concerns emerge as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting substantially higher costs than competitors for identical services. Project completion is generally solid with same-day service and quick turnarounds noted frequently, though one recent review (May 2025) flagged communication failures during scheduling. The company shows a troubling pattern: exceptional performance in 2024-2025 contrasts sharply with serious complaints from 2021-2023 regarding overcharging, poor follow-up, and landscaping damage.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple explicit complaints about overcharging (freon costs 2x competitors, $700/hour labor rates, $90 diagnostic fees). This is the most consistent negative pattern across reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Recent reviews (2025, late 2024) are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise. Older reviews (2021-2023) contain detailed, specific complaints about pricing and professionalism. This suggests either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One May 2025 review (2-star) explicitly documents failure to call back customers within promised timeframe, contradicting the company's otherwise strong responsiveness reputation.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text or only emojis, reducing data quality.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Landscaping damage incident (Oct 2023) and refund resistance suggest accountability issues that may persist despite recent positive reviews.
• LANGUAGE DIVERSITY: One review in Korean (Jan 2025) with 5-star rating and generic praise raises minor authenticity concerns, though content is positive.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while recent 2024-2025 reviews show strong professionalism and completion metrics, the consistent and specific pricing complaints across multiple years (2021-2023) represent a genuine business practice concern that is not fully reflected in the current score due to recency weighting. Customers should expect professional service but should independently verify pricing against competitors before committing.