Find Nearby Plumbers In Fayetteville, Arkansas

Pride Plumbing receives strong praise for professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians across a large volume of reviews, with many customers specifically naming individual plumbers who went above and beyond. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple detailed negative reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, quotes that changed dramatically upon arrival, charges for incomplete work, and rates described as 400-500% above competitors. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed efficiently and same-day, but a meaningful subset of negative reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, warranty disputes, abandoned jobs, and technicians who left without resolving the issue. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, but several negative reviews describe incompetent diagnoses, improper repairs, and work that had to be redone by other companies. The wide spread between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints suggests inconsistent service quality across different technicians and locations.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates (e.g., the 'Nobody wants to need a plumber' review from 2022-10-17 appears twice; the 'Bait and switch' review from 2024-08-12 and 2024-09-12 are near-identical). This inflates positive review counts and reduces reliability.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but may artificially inflate the star average.
• PRICING PATTERN — BAIT AND SWITCH: Multiple independent, detailed reviews (not duplicates) describe the same pattern: a low price quoted by phone ($89 or $150/hr), followed by a significantly higher charge upon arrival ($225 walk-in fee, $175/hr, or flat rates far above quote). This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe work failing within days or weeks, warranty claims being denied or disputed, and management refusing to honor commitments made by technicians in the field.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT CONCERNS: Several reviews describe management calling customers liars, being dismissive of complaints, failing to return calls, and altering invoice language after the fact. One review describes a manager asking the customer to explain the fix so he could train his own plumber.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2008 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain a notably higher proportion of negative pricing and completion complaints relative to earlier periods, suggesting possible decline in service consistency.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-LOCATION ENTITY: Reviews reference locations including San Diego CA, Summerville SC, North Charleston SC, Chula Vista CA, La Mesa CA, and Inland Empire CA. It is possible these reviews aggregate multiple businesses operating under the 'Pride Plumbing' name, which would reduce the reliability of treating this as a single contractor profile.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: Two reviews (aggressive driving on I-805, rude parking behavior) describe conduct unrelated to plumbing service quality and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a high volume of blank star-only reviews, strong evidence of systemic pricing misrepresentation, and the possibility that reviews span multiple distinct business locations operating under the same name.

All American Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. The most recent reviews (2024–2025, predominantly from what appears to be a San Diego-area operation) are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians like Lance, Mason, Elliott, JoJo, Justin, Ryan, and Nick for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2021, many referencing a technician named Robert and home warranty company assignments, likely a different geographic location or franchise) describes a pattern of serious failures: no-shows, misdiagnoses, rude office staff, abandoned jobs, overcharging, and dishonest reporting to home warranty companies. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems made worse, and failure to follow through. Pricing scores are mixed — recent customers praise fair and transparent quotes, while older customers describe significant overcharging and bait-and-switch tactics. The experience dimension similarly splits between highly skilled recent technicians and incompetent or fraudulent older service calls.

• CRITICAL: The review pool appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct business entities or locations operating under the name 'All American Plumbing.' Recent reviews (2024–2025) reference San Diego-area technicians and a clearly different operational culture from older reviews (2012–2021) that repeatedly reference a technician named 'Robert' and home warranty fraud patterns. Scores should be interpreted with this bifurcation in mind.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews from late 2021 (dates: 2021-12-01 to 2021-12-02) are clustered within 48 hours, are unusually generic in praise, and reference a Texas/Houston-area business context inconsistent with the San Diego reviews. One reviewer (2022-01-25) explicitly flags these as suspected fake reviews posted by California residents for a Houston business.
• 14 reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent 80+ reviews (2024–2025) are almost entirely 5-star and reflect a high-performing San Diego operation. The older reviews (pre-2023) contain a disproportionate number of 1-star reviews describing a pattern of fraud, rudeness, and incompetence. If evaluating only the last 12 months, scores would be substantially higher across all dimensions.
• PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS — HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers assigned through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, Old Republic, 2-10, First American). These reviews describe a consistent pattern of misdiagnosis, upselling, no-shows, and dishonest reporting to warranty companies. This pattern is strong enough to suggest systemic rather than isolated failures in that operational context.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-07-06, 1-star) alleges a company truck attempted to run the reviewer off the road. This is an isolated conduct allegation that cannot be scored but is flagged as a serious concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2023-06-23, 1-star) contains an allegation of spying on an elderly customer and reporting personal activities to an HOA. This is an isolated but serious allegation flagged for awareness.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years cite a receptionist named 'Jennifer' as rude, condescending, and argumentative. This is a recurring named pattern suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the office level, not isolated to field technicians.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool almost certainly spans two distinct business entities or operational eras — the recent San Diego operation (2024–2025) would score approximately 88–92 on its own, while the older review corpus (pre-2023, likely a different location) would score approximately 35–45, and consumers should research which entity they are engaging before relying on this blended score.

North Star Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise the professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill of named technicians like Rick, Brandon, Aaron, and Ronnie. However, a significant and recurring cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years but continuing into 2024 and 2025 — documents serious project completion failures including no-shows, abandoned jobs, missed appointments, and unresponsive communication, primarily in the context of Lowe's/Handy/Angi subcontracting work. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive by direct customers, but at least two reviewers flagged unexpected charges or overpricing on specific jobs. The dual nature of this contractor — performing well for direct/repeat clients while generating consistent complaints through third-party referral channels — significantly drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. Experience scores remain relatively strong, as most reviewers who received completed work reported skilled, knowledgeable technicians.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews across 2023, 2024, and 2025 describe the same failure mode — installer marks job complete without showing up, claims they could not reach the customer, and provides no verification. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• THIRD-PARTY CHANNEL FAILURES: The majority of negative reviews originate from customers assigned through Lowe's, Handy, or Angi. Direct customers report a markedly better experience. This split suggests the company may be overextended or less accountable when working through intermediaries.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least one review (2024-06-09) explicitly states a faucet was partially installed and never completed despite multiple follow-up attempts. A 2023 review describes a dishwasher reinstall that caused flooding and the owner denying responsibility.
• HIDDEN/UNEXPECTED CHARGES: Two reviews (2019 and 2023) describe being charged significantly more than the quoted or expected price without prior notice, including a $150 charge for a low-cost part and a final bill $155 above the quoted amount.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2007 to 2025. Reviews from 2007–2018 were given reduced weight. The majority of scoreable data comes from 2019–2025, with the most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) showing a mixed but active pattern of both strong praise and serious complaints.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-26 and 2025-05-10 share very similar short, generic phrasing with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution. Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings also appear throughout the dataset and were excluded from scoring.
• INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2024-11-08) alleges an installer made inappropriate personal comments during a job, causing the customer significant distress. This is a serious professionalism concern even if isolated.
• UNSAFE DRIVING ALLEGATION: One review (2024-12-11) alleges a company vehicle nearly caused a road accident. While not directly related to plumbing quality, it reflects on company culture and professionalism.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 18 years, with strong data across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a well-documented and recurring pattern of service failures in third-party referral contexts — prospective customers using Lowe's or similar platforms should be especially aware of these risks before booking.

Plumb Masters has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Graham, Oliver, Joe, and others — for punctuality, communication, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews reveals serious recurring issues: work that failed within days of completion, warranty disputes, poor follow-through on estimates, and unresponsive management during crises (notably the February 2021 freeze). Pricing is a consistent pain point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out costs as higher than expected or higher than competitors, and one reviewer noting a non-transparent flat-rate pricing model with built-in contingency charges. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as several reviews describe jobs that were not properly finished, required callbacks that were denied or charged again, or were abandoned entirely without follow-up. The overall score reflects a company with capable field technicians but systemic issues in quality assurance, warranty honoring, and customer service escalation.

• Several reviews describe work failing within days of completion (drain clog recurrence within 5 days, leak not properly fixed requiring a second plumber), with the company refusing to honor warranty or charging again for return visits — a significant project completion risk.
• Multiple reviews from 2019–2021 cite the company not standing behind its work, with phrases like 'no warranty' added to invoices after the fact without prior communication.
• The February 2021 freeze incident is documented in detail by a long-term Platinum member: the company was completely unreachable during an emergency and never followed up for over 6 months, suggesting systemic failure under high-demand conditions.
• Two reviews from 2014 are about erratic driving behavior by company vehicles and are not relevant to plumbing service quality — these were excluded from dimension scoring but noted as professionalism flags.
• One review (2021-05-17, 1-star) appears emotionally exaggerated and potentially non-genuine ('I will see you in hell') with no specific factual detail — treated with low evidentiary weight.
• One review (2011, Simi Valley) appears geographically inconsistent with an Austin-based company and may be a misattributed or fake review — excluded from scoring.
• The company operates under multiple brand names (Blue Dragon, Plumb Doctors, Plumb Masters) which caused customer confusion and was flagged in at least one review — this may affect accountability and review attribution.
• Pricing dimension scored conservatively at 58 due to a near-even split between reviewers calling pricing fair or reasonable and those calling it significantly higher than expected, non-transparent, or exploitative.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2011–2023 with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of warranty denial, post-job pricing disputes, and emergency unresponsiveness that suggest the company's quality is highly technician-dependent and inconsistent at the organizational level.

Cox Plumbing demonstrates consistently strong professionalism across many reviews, with repeated mentions of punctuality, courteous communication, and transparent explanations of work being performed. Their technical experience in leak detection — particularly slab and underground leaks — is a clear strength, with multiple reviewers praising their diagnostic accuracy and problem-solving ability. Project completion scores well overall, though one reviewer explicitly reported the leak was never resolved after two visits, and one negative review cited a poor phone interaction that prevented the job from even starting. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, with one reviewer noting the flat-rate model saved them money versus hourly competitors, though another acknowledged they can be expensive due to specialized equipment. The score is tempered by the large volume of content-free reviews ('unknown' or '.') which provide star ratings but no usable qualitative data.

• 35 of 70 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', or a single word title only). These reviews contribute star ratings but cannot be scored on any dimension and inflate the apparent review count without providing verifiable evidence.
• The cluster of 'unknown' and placeholder reviews — many dated within tight windows in 2013–2015 — raises a moderate concern about review authenticity or bulk import from a third-party platform. Confidence is reduced accordingly for overall score reliability.
• The vast majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only one review dated within the past 12 months (2021). Recency is very low — current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.
• One explicit negative review (1-star, 2017) describes a hostile phone interaction with office staff, and one 2-star review (2013) reports the leak was never successfully located after two attempts. These are meaningful negative signals that offset some of the positive pattern.
• One review (2021) contains only a job title ('Utility sink installation') with no qualitative content and a 5-star rating — not usable for dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the qualitative reviews that do contain detail are largely consistent and credible, but the high proportion of content-free placeholder reviews, the near-total absence of recent reviews, and minor indicators of possible bulk review importing all limit how confidently this score can be applied to the contractor's current service quality.

Omni Plumbing scores well across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising prompt communication, knowledgeable diagnosis, and thorough follow-through on jobs. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension, with reviewers highlighting punctuality, friendly demeanor, and responsiveness across many reviews. Project completion is also well-supported, with several reviewers describing jobs completed fully and correctly the first time. Pricing data is thin — only two reviews touch on value or cost, limiting confidence in that dimension. The overall score is tempered by the age of the majority of reviews, most of which are from 2016–2021, with only one review from the past 12 months.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 14 reviews is from the past 12 months (2023). The majority of reviews are 3–9 years old, significantly reducing the reliability of this score as a reflection of current service quality.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: One review contained only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews reference Jon, Jason, John, and Brian Odom — suggesting either multiple staff members or possible name inconsistencies. This may indicate reviews are not all for the same individual technician.
• MILD FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews use highly enthusiastic, generic praise with limited specific detail (e.g., 'AWESOME SERVICE!!!', 'FANTASTIC'). While not conclusive, a small number of reviews show patterns of vague superlatives without job-specific context. Confidence is not reduced significantly but is noted.
• SMALL REVIEW POOL: With only 14 total reviews spanning nearly a decade, the dataset is limited and may not represent consistent current performance.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the professionalism, project completion, and experience dimensions are reasonably well-supported by explicit review content, but the score's trustworthiness is meaningfully reduced by the age of most reviews, a thin pricing dataset, and a small total review pool.