Find Nearby Plumbers In Fayetteville, Arkansas

KJ Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Pricing emerges as a particular strength, with multiple reviews explicitly praising fair pricing, competitive estimates, and transparent quotes with no hidden charges. Professionalism is consistently highlighted through punctuality, politeness, and personable communication. Project completion is supported by reviews confirming work was done well and jobs were finished. Technical skill is mentioned but with limited frequency. However, the review dataset is small (6 total, 5 usable) and heavily skewed toward older reviews (most from 2012–2021), which limits confidence in current performance.

• One review (Review 5) appears to reference a different company (Campbell's Sewer Cleaning) and was excluded from scoring as it does not pertain to KJ Plumbing.
• Dataset is small (5 usable reviews) and heavily weighted toward older dates (2012–2021). Only 1 review is from 2021; no reviews from 2022 onward. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective limits depth of analysis.
• Experience dimension is supported by only 2 mentions, resulting in LIMITED confidence for that score.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews), age of most data (2012–2021), and lack of recent feedback. The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service quality.

Johnson Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven by strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion. The company excels in experience and skill level (82.5), with numerous reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. Professionalism scores well at 78.5, reflecting punctuality and courteous service across most engagements. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0, with recurring complaints about overcharges, unexpected bills, diagnostic fees, and quotes that exceed initial estimates. Project completion is reliable at 79.0, though some customers report incomplete work or callbacks needed. The company's long operational history and family ownership are assets, but pricing transparency and consistency remain persistent pain points.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Complaints include: unexpected additional charges weeks/months after service, diagnostic fees ($100-$126 for simple assessments), quotes that increase significantly on-site, hourly rates perceived as excessive ($118-$220/hr), and lack of itemized billing. Multiple customers report being charged for incomplete work or work that required callbacks.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians (Ken, Rodney, Brad, Eric, Jason), others report incompetent work from unnamed technicians, suggesting quality varies significantly by individual. Some customers had to hire second plumbers to redo work.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) describe delayed invoicing (bills arriving 4+ months after service), surprise charges, and threats of collection action. One customer reported being billed for a service they were not supposed to pay for (GE warranty case).
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews mention promised callbacks that never occurred, estimates that were never provided, and poor communication from dispatch/office staff.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 1-star reviews (approximately 25 total) cluster around pricing disputes, incomplete work, rude staff behavior, and failure to honor commitments. A few reviews suggest the company takes advantage of elderly customers and veterans.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which contrasts sharply with 2020-2023 reviews that contain more critical feedback. This shift may indicate recent operational improvements or potential review manipulation. Recommend treating very recent reviews with moderate caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (no text, 5-star rating) and several generic single-word reviews ('Great!', 'Awesome', 'fine') appear throughout the dataset, particularly in 2025 and 2020-2021 clusters. This pattern is consistent with review padding, though not conclusive.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable for understanding Johnson Plumbing's overall performance, supported by 287 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant variability: the company delivers strong technical work and responsiveness but has persistent, well-documented pricing issues that materially impact customer satisfaction. Prospective customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm pricing before work begins, and request itemized invoices to mitigate financial risk. The recent surge in 5-star reviews warrants cautious interpretation.

Brad's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, friendliness, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing tasks. Pricing is generally described as fair and competitive, with several reviewers specifically noting no hidden charges and transparent estimates. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises legitimate concerns about professionalism failures including no-shows, failure to return calls, abandoned work, and at least one instance of a technician refusing to comply with reasonable entry requirements. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple credible accounts of unfinished work, ignored callbacks, and scheduling breakdowns. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a documented pattern of inconsistency that cannot be dismissed.

• Two reviews dated 2025-05-10 are nearly identical in phrasing ('The plumber was professional, courteous and clearly explained the work he performed') — one appears to be a duplicate or near-duplicate submission, suggesting possible review padding.
• Two reviews dated 2024-06-09 are word-for-word identical ('Once again, we received outstanding service from Brad's Plumbing...') — this is a confirmed duplicate and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• Several reviews from 2025 are very short, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great service, great work!', 'Jeremy is an absolute professional! Always does a great job!'). While not conclusive, this pattern is consistent with coached or incentivized reviews.
• Six reviews have no text at all (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe: abandoned work with no follow-up (2018, 2022), no-shows without notification (2015), refusal to return calls (2020, 2022), overcharging complaints (2018), and faulty installation causing ongoing leaks (2016). These are spread across different years and reviewers, lending them credibility.
• One 1-star review (2017) relates to a driving incident rather than service quality and was weighted minimally for professionalism only.
• Recency note: The majority of positive reviews are from 2022–2025, which is favorable. However, negative reviews also appear in recent years (2020, 2022), indicating the issues are not solely historical.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given a consistent minority of credible negative reviews describing serious service failures including abandoned work, non-communication, and no-shows — issues that are not offset by volume of praise alone.

Plumb Doctors earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with dozens of reviewers praising individual technicians by name for being friendly, communicative, and thorough — particularly in after-hours and emergency situations where competitors were unavailable. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished on the same visit, though a meaningful cluster of reviews describes no-shows, missed appointments, and at least two cases of failed diagnoses where the problem was not resolved and the customer was still charged. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers found costs fair — especially for emergency or after-hours work — a significant number explicitly called out excessive markups, inconsistent estimates, and charges that felt disproportionate to the work performed, pulling this score down considerably. Technical experience is generally well-regarded, with multiple reviewers citing skilled problem-solving and knowledgeable technicians, but offset by a few notable failures where technicians arrived unprepared or lacked the expertise for the specific job. Overall, Plumb Doctors performs best as an emergency plumber with strong individual technicians, but reliability and pricing consistency are areas of legitimate concern.

• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: At least 4 reviews (Jan 2024, Jun 2024, and others) describe no-shows, missed appointment windows, or complete failure to arrive — including one reviewer who waited an entire day with a burst pipe and no water. This is a material pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews flag dramatically different pricing experiences — from fair to exploitative. Specific complaints include: $378 to snake a kitchen sink, $451 to install an expansion tank, $895 for sonar leak detection (before any repair), and a $350 diagnostic fee charged after the customer was explicitly told there would be none. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices across technicians.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe technicians arriving unprepared, failing to diagnose the problem correctly, or recommending unnecessary replacements (e.g., $18,000 tunnel quote for a hair clog; $8,000 water heater replacement for a unit worth $1,300; technician who needed to call tech support to troubleshoot a tankless heater). These are significant experience-related failures.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The reviews are largely specific, name individual technicians, describe distinct scenarios, and span a wide date range. No strong pattern of fake reviews detected. However, the volume of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great guys, great service') slightly reduces confidence in the upper end of scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews analyzed fall within the past 3 years (2021–2024), with the majority from 2022–2024. No significant recency weighting adjustment required, though the no-show complaints are concentrated in early 2024, suggesting a possible recent decline in scheduling reliability.

This WW Score is based on 81 reviews with a high volume of dimension-specific mentions across all four categories, making it statistically reliable — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented patterns of scheduling failures, pricing inconsistency, and occasional technician unpreparedness that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong professionalism and responsiveness ratings.

AB Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who frequently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous technicians, driving solid professionalism and experience scores. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures including no-shows after confirmed appointments, dispatchers who never followed through, and at least one case of significant property damage left unaddressed. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, quotes not honored, and pricing that varied by neighborhood, pulling the price-friendly score down considerably. Project completion is similarly mixed — most jobs were finished well, but several reviews describe incomplete quotes, abandoned work, rescheduled visits, and a multi-month delay on a permit job. The score reflects a contractor with genuine capability but inconsistent execution and accountability.

• 12 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the hotel gas line installation review dated 2022-05-12 and 2022-06-09, and the kitchen sink leak review dated 2022-05-11 and 2022-06-09). This may indicate review padding or copy-paste errors.
• One review (dated 2024-09-26) contains AI-generated framing ('Here is a polished version of your review') suggesting the reviewer submitted a rewritten version of their own text — authenticity is plausible but the editorial framing is unusual.
• The cluster of 5-star reviews all dated exactly 2022-06-09 (8 reviews on the same date) is suspicious and may represent a coordinated review push. Several of these are text-free. Confidence in that date cluster is reduced.
• A significant number of reviews predate 2022 (roughly 40+ reviews), meaning a large portion of the review base is more than 3 years old. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more mixed and should be weighted more heavily by prospective customers.
• Negative reviews describe systemic issues — no-call no-shows, billing disputes, unresolved property damage — that appear across multiple years and multiple reviewers, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (120 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the presence of suspected duplicate reviews, a suspicious same-day review cluster, and a wide spread of review dates spanning over 15 years means prospective customers should weight recent 1-star reviews heavily when making their decision.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.