Find Nearby Plumbers In Little Rock, Arkansas

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Three of the six reviews describe serious failures: leaving a bathroom flooded with black water without notifying the customer, concealing a broken pipe in a yard, and installing a waterline at an unsafe depth — all of which reflect poor professionalism, incomplete or harmful project outcomes, and questionable technical competence. The two positive reviews (a quick drain rooting and a fast water heater install) provide some counterbalance on pricing and responsiveness, but they are older (2012 and 2017) and lack detail. The most recent reviews (2020) are the most damning, and recency weighting pulls the overall score down significantly.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most positive reviews are from 2012 and 2017 — over 5 years old at minimum. The three most negative reviews are from 2020, making them the most relevant to current performance.
• CONCEALMENT OF DAMAGE: One review explicitly describes a technician breaking a pipe and failing to disclose it to the customer, which is a serious ethical and professional red flag.
• ABANDONED WORK / NO FOLLOW-THROUGH: The 2020 shower drain review describes workers leaving without notice, leaving the bathroom in worse condition, and promising a return visit that never happened.
• DISPUTED FACTS: In the pipe-break review, the company's account of events directly contradicted the customer's account, suggesting either poor communication practices or dishonesty.
• CODE VIOLATION: One review describes a waterline installed at an unsafe depth, suggesting a potential technical competency or code-compliance issue.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total span nearly a decade. This is insufficient to draw high-confidence conclusions about consistent performance.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 6 reviews spanning 8 years, the most recent of which are strongly negative, and the sample size is too small to represent consistent contractor behavior with confidence.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across all 5 reviews and paints a deeply divided picture — two positive reviews praise the team's conduct and cleanup, while three reviews describe the owner as hostile, rage-filled, and unwilling to take responsibility, dragging the score down significantly. Project completion is similarly mixed: one reviewer praised thorough follow-through, one noted a decade of reliable service, but one review explicitly described work being left in a wet, leaking mess with no remediation. Pricing received only one mention — a long-term customer noting reasonable fees — so that score carries very low confidence. Experience was touched on in two reviews, with one long-term customer affirming consistent quality and one describing a botched repair job, resulting in a conservative mid-range score. The overall WW Score of 38.7 reflects serious concerns about owner conduct and job completion reliability.

• Three of five reviews are 1-star and describe the owner specifically as hostile, threatening, and unwilling to resolve disputes — this is a consistent and credible pattern of concern, not an isolated incident.
• The most recent reviews are from 2020; the oldest negative review dates to 2013, suggesting owner conduct issues have persisted over many years.
• All reviews are older than 3 years as of 2024, meaning there is NO data from the past 12 months. Current business quality cannot be assessed from this dataset.
• The two 5-star reviews are somewhat generic in praise and one reviewer identifies themselves by full name, which can occasionally indicate a solicited or incentivized review — treat with moderate caution.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews severely limits reliability. The WW Score should be treated as directional only.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all more than 3 years old, and should be treated as LOW reliability — the score directionally signals significant professionalism and completion concerns, but more recent and numerous reviews would be required to assess the contractor's current performance with confidence.

Three of the four reviews are strongly negative, citing issues with laziness, no-shows, refusal to guarantee work, and poor customer service from the owner. The single positive review (5 stars, Russell Graham) describes a decade-long relationship with excellent work, punctuality, and communication, but it is one voice against three critical accounts. Pricing is flagged as a concern in two separate negative reviews, with one customer citing a $289 charge for incomplete work and another describing the quote as extremely high. Project completion is a major weakness, with one customer reporting the job did not resolve the issue and a callback was ignored, and another reporting a complete no-show for an emergency booking. The overall picture is predominantly negative, with the positive review providing only partial counterbalance.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• The single 5-star review (Russell Graham, 2018) is highly detailed and spans 10 years, which adds some credibility, but it stands alone against three 1-star reviews.
• All three negative reviews describe distinct, specific incidents (no-show, refused callback, overpriced incomplete work), which increases their credibility.
• The most recent review is from July 2021 — all reviews are over 3 years old as of 2025, meaning there is no recent data to assess current performance.
• RECENCY WARNING: No reviews from the past 12 months. Business quality may have changed significantly since the last review in 2021.
• One reviewer explicitly states they were previously a customer and had a prior bad experience, suggesting a pattern of poor service over multiple years.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all dated between 2013 and 2021, making it LOW in both sample size and recency — treat this score as a preliminary signal only and seek more current references before hiring.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans a decade, making any conclusions highly tentative. Two of the three reviews are strongly negative, describing a technician who abandoned a customer mid-visit without providing a quote, a failure to perform proper diagnostics, and a $1,000 charge that left the HVAC system still non-functional. The single positive review is brief, generic, and lacks any specific detail, raising concerns about its authenticity. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with two explicit accounts of work not being finished or resolved. Professionalism also scores poorly due to the account of the technician leaving without explanation.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The 5-star review (2018-02-26) is extremely generic ('Punctual hard-working and get it done right the first time. Absolutely the best plumbers around') with no specific details, job description, or context. This pattern is consistent with a fabricated or incentivized review.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only one review is within the past 12 months (2023). One review dates to 2013 — over a decade old — and should be treated as low-relevance for current performance assessment.
• VERY LOW SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable. Treat all scores as highly provisional.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: One reviewer explicitly states they paid $1,000 and their HVAC was still not working — a direct project completion failure.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: One reviewer states the technician left the premises without providing a promised quote or completing the diagnostic visit — an abandonment of service.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 10 years, one of which appears potentially fake, making the overall score LOW reliability and unsuitable for confident contractor evaluation without significantly more review data.

The overwhelming majority of reviews paint a deeply negative picture of Razorback Piping Systems across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of poor communication, bad attitudes, no-shows without notice, and outright refusal to follow through on commitments. Project completion is the weakest area, with repeated reports of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, excessive delays spanning days or weeks, and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, including allegations of overcharging and attempting to upsell unnecessary replacements rather than performing requested repairs. Experience and workmanship are also called into question, with at least two reviewers explicitly noting that problems were made worse or not properly diagnosed. The single positive review, which praised fair pricing and a lowered quote, is an outlier and insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume of serious negative feedback.

• 7 out of 8 reviews are rated 1 or 2 stars — this is a strong negative signal and not a balanced review set.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is January 2019, oldest is January 2013). Recency weighting is not applicable; the score reflects historical performance only and current quality is unknown.
• One review explicitly questions licensing, insurance, and BBB accreditation status — this is a serious flag that warrants independent verification before hiring.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, and a range of negative experiences consistent with authentic customer feedback.
• The single positive review (2019) lacks specifics about the type of work performed and stands in stark contrast to all other reviews — it should be treated with caution and does not substantially alter the overall assessment.

This WW Score is based on a small sample of 8 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old, but the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across multiple dimensions gives the low score moderate-to-high reliability as a historical indicator of poor service quality.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Multiple detailed reviews document rude behavior, poor workmanship requiring five callbacks to complete a single job, and structural damage left unrepaired. Pricing concerns are evident in one review citing excessive costs and additional repair expenses. The few positive reviews lack substantive detail and are dated 9+ years ago, making them unreliable indicators of current performance. Recent negative reviews (2024, 2023) provide concrete evidence of ongoing problems.

• Three reviews contain minimal or no substantive content ('unknown', '.') rated 5-star — suggests potential fake positive reviews
• Stark contrast between detailed negative reviews (recent, specific damage/behavior descriptions) and vague positive reviews (generic praise, no specifics, very old dates)
• Most positive reviews are from 2014-2016 (9+ years old); most negative reviews are recent (2023-2024), indicating deterioration or historical fake reviews
• One review explicitly documents five callbacks for same job — major red flag for project completion and quality
• One review documents structural damage (drywall, wood) left unrepaired — serious liability and workmanship concern

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 substantive reviews from past 12 months) and suspected fake positive reviews, but the pattern of detailed, specific complaints about damage, rudeness, and repeated failures is concerning and warrants serious consideration before hiring.