Find Nearby Plumbers In Jonesboro, Arkansas

All four reviews speak positively about Pepper's professionalism, describing him as polite, honest, straightforward, and responsive. Pricing is a consistent highlight across reviews, with multiple customers explicitly noting fair charges, competitive quotes, and no price inflation despite difficult jobs. Project completion is supported by at least three reviews that describe jobs being seen through to resolution, including a full-day drainage repair and a difficult hot water tank replacement. Experience is evidenced by references to handling older home plumbing systems, complex drainage clogs, and technical knowledge, though the review base is small. Scores are kept conservative given the very limited sample size of only four reviews.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Three of the four reviews are older than 12 months, with two dating back to 2020 and one to 2016. Only one review (October 2024) is recent. Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive sentiment. While the reviews do contain specific details (job types, pricing figures, time spent), the small sample and absence of any critical feedback warrants caution.
• No negative or mixed feedback present across any dimension — this may reflect genuine quality but could also reflect a limited or self-selected review pool.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, three of which are over 3 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment without a larger and more recent review sample.

The most detailed and recent review (2023) paints a strong picture of a skilled, thorough, and professional operator who solved complex problems that other plumbers could not, stayed within budget, communicated clearly, and cleaned up after himself. A 2014 review similarly highlights strong diagnostic ability and thoroughness beyond the immediate task. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with multiple reviews explicitly mentioning punctuality, courtesy, communication, and cleanliness. Pricing received only one explicit mention, so that score carries very limited weight. Two reviews ('Excellent.' and 'Great!') provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.

• Two reviews ('Excellent.' and 'Great!') contain no substantive detail and contribute no scorable data — they were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Five of seven reviews are dated 2013–2014, making them over 10 years old. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. The score is heavily influenced by a single recent review.
• The 2013–2014 reviews are very brief and generic, which slightly raises concern about their depth, though they do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews — they reference different technician names (Nick, Marcos, Joseph, Jon, Michael), which adds authenticity.
• With only 7 total reviews and 5 usable, the overall dataset is small. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score has LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool, a heavy concentration of reviews that are over a decade old, and two reviews that provided no scorable data — the score is best treated as a cautiously positive directional signal rather than a statistically robust assessment.

C&R Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback on professionalism, with multiple reviewers highlighting same-day responsiveness, respectful technicians, clear communication, and thorough cleanup after work. Project completion is generally strong, though one review noted a toilet repair required multiple visits before being resolved — a mild concern offset by the fact the company honored a no-extra-charge policy for the repeat visit. Pricing data is thin, based on a single review, but that review praised the company's fair billing practice of not charging for return visits on the same problem. Workmanship appears solid across the reviews that addressed it, with specific mentions of quality lasting and thorough job execution. The overall score is tempered by the very small review pool and the significant age of most reviews.

• Only 6 reviews total — this is a very small sample and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• 4 of 6 reviews are more than 3 years old, and 3 reviews are more than 5 years old (2011, 2013, 2018). Recent performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2022). Recency weighting significantly limits confidence.
• One review ('Good.' with a 3-star rating and no detail) provides almost no usable data and may reflect a neutral or mildly dissatisfied experience with no elaboration.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity, which is a positive signal.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 6 reviews, the majority of which are significantly outdated, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current quality of service with confidence.

This review set aggregates feedback across what appears to be multiple contractors and companies all operating under or associated with the 'ASAP Plumbing' name, which significantly complicates scoring. Positive reviews — many centered on individual plumbers named Bruce, Jerry, and Anthony — consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, driving scores upward across all dimensions. However, a substantial cluster of serious negative reviews describes abandoned work, dangerous code violations, dishonest upselling, rude behavior, and jobs left incomplete or improperly executed, pulling scores down considerably. The water heater installation failure described in two separate reviews (likely the same incident) is a particularly damaging data point for both project completion and experience. Overall, the score reflects a deeply mixed contractor profile where individual technician quality varies enormously and company-level accountability is a recurring concern.

• MULTIPLE ENTITIES WARNING: Reviews appear to reference several distinct contractors and possibly multiple separate businesses all using the 'ASAP Plumbing' name across different geographic regions (California, Kansas, Virginia, etc.). Scores should not be interpreted as reflecting a single unified business.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contained no text content (only a rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews. Their uniformly positive ratings with zero detail raise concerns about authenticity.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: Several reviews consist of only a period ('.'), 'unknown', or a single generic sentence with no specifics. These add no usable data and inflate the raw star average artificially.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2002 to 2024. A significant number of reviews predate 2020 and were given reduced weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) include a dangerous water heater installation failure and an abandoned job with no follow-up, which are weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2002) describes a boiler flue installation that was not up to code, caused carbon monoxide leakage, triggered a fire department response, and was subsequently repaired improperly. Another (2024) describes an oversized water heater installed without a drip pan in a confined space, leading to unit failure within a month. These are significant safety and competence red flags.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were started but never completed, with the company becoming unreachable afterward. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods and locations.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least two reviews describe charges of approximately $1,800 for water heater installations that resulted in immediate failure, followed by demands for an additional $580 without proper diagnosis. One review describes a $5,200 quote that a second plumber resolved for $160.
• HIDDEN FEES: One reviewer noted an undisclosed 3.5% credit card surcharge revealed only after work was completed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a guide to any single contractor is LOW because the reviews almost certainly reflect multiple distinct businesses and individual plumbers operating under similar or identical trade names across different regions — consumers should verify which specific entity and technician they are hiring before relying on this score.

Paschal receives strongly polarized feedback across a very large review set. On professionalism, the majority of individual technician interactions are praised as courteous, polite, and communicative, but this is heavily offset by a persistent and well-documented pattern of missed appointments, no-shows, poor scheduling communication, and rude office staff — issues that appear consistently across years and locations. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far: dozens of independent reviewers explicitly describe charges as 2x to 5x competitive rates, with multiple accounts of upselling unnecessary parts or services, lack of itemized invoices, and predatory pricing toward elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion suffers significantly from recurring themes of repeat callbacks for the same unresolved issues, abandoned or incomplete work, and parts delays leaving customers without heat or AC for days or weeks. Experience scores moderately well because many individual technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but this is undermined by multiple credible accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect repairs, and work that had to be redone by competitors at a fraction of the cost.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the Spanish-language 1-star review appears twice on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'They were very nice and prompt...' appears twice; 'Tech Mike Rodriguez...' appears twice; 'Donna at Paschal...' appears four times on 2023-09-10; 'Competitive price, prompt follow up...' appears four times on 2023-10-07; 'technician was great, really knew his stuff...' appears four times on 2024-02-24; 'Great service' appears four times on 2024-01-19; 'Do not use this company...' appears twice on 2024-01-19; 'Excellent service with a quick response time...' appears four times on 2023-08-25; 'Overall, the experience was positive...' appears four times on 2023-08-23; 'Don't waste your time with this company...' appears three times on 2024-05-31). These duplicates inflate the apparent review count and may distort the score. Confidence in raw volume is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE/INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of 5-star reviews contain no text (blank body), generic one-liners ('Great service!', 'Outstanding!', 'Great job!'), or suspiciously identical phrasing. These reviews provide no usable data and suggest possible review padding.
• SYSTEMATIC UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations describe technicians recommending unnecessary full-unit replacements when minor repairs were needed, quoting prices 2x-5x what competitors charged for identical work. This is a structural business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY IS A SYSTEMIC FAILURE: No-shows, missed appointment windows, lack of proactive communication, and rescheduling without notice are documented in dozens of reviews spanning 2012 to 2025, indicating this is an unresolved operational problem.
• PREDATORY PRICING TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: Multiple reviewers explicitly describe elderly or disabled customers being quoted prices 3x-5x market rate for standard repairs. One review describes a $4,500 labor charge for a warranty part replacement; another describes $3,000 for a coil replacement that competitors charged $300 for.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews with substantive content span 2019-2025, with the most recent cluster from May-June 2025. The negative patterns (scheduling, pricing, upselling) are consistent across the entire date range, suggesting these are not improving over time.
• COMPANY ACQUISITION CONTEXT: Several reviews note that Paschal acquired previously well-regarded companies (Walker AC, Big Bear, Lyerla), and multiple long-term customers of those prior companies report significant service degradation post-acquisition. Some positive reviews in the dataset appear to reference the predecessor companies rather than Paschal directly, which may inflate positive scores.

This WW Score of 58.2 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a significant proportion of blank or generic 5-star reviews suggesting possible review manipulation, and a stark divide between positive individual technician experiences and deeply negative systemic issues around pricing, scheduling, and project completion.

Nuckles and Sons shows a deeply mixed track record across all scored dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by a no-show on an emergency call from a 15-year customer (2024) and a billing dispute that escalated to collections, though older reviews praise friendliness, punctuality, and courtesy. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: one review explicitly describes unresolved work, pipes broken during the job, and an unjust invoice sent afterward, while another notes the technician was fast and thorough on a drain stoppage. Experience scores low-to-moderate due to explicit mentions of poor workmanship on a repair job and a reviewer cautioning against using them for anything beyond drain clearing. Pricing receives a modest score, with one reviewer noting reasonable pricing and no unnecessary upselling, but the collections incident introduces a serious transparency concern.

• The most recent negative review (2024-01-24) describes a no-show for an emergency frozen pipe situation from a long-term customer — this is a significant reliability red flag.
• The 2020 review describes a contractor who failed to fix the problem, caused additional damage, then billed the customer and pursued collections — this is a serious workmanship and ethics concern.
• Four of the six reviews are from 2016–2017, meaning the majority of data is over 7 years old. Only two reviews are from 2020 or later, and both are 1-star. Recency weighting significantly undermines confidence in positive scores.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.
• Small sample size of only 6 reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the sample size is very small, most positive reviews are 7+ years old, and the two most recent reviews (2020 and 2024) both describe serious failures in project completion and professionalism.