Find Nearby Plumbers In Norwich, Connecticut

Eric Sabo Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the strongest area, with 17 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, politeness, and cleanliness. Project completion is consistently reliable, with 14 reviews confirming on-time delivery, follow-through, and same-day or rapid service. Pricing receives strong marks from 9 reviews highlighting fair, transparent, and competitive rates. Technical expertise is evident in 11 reviews describing skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and thorough problem-solving. All 19 reviews are 5-star ratings with specific, detailed examples of service quality.

• All 19 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or complaints. While reviews contain specific details and vary in length/phrasing, the uniformity of perfect ratings is unusual and warrants cautious interpretation.
• Most reviews are from 2019 (11 reviews), with only 8 reviews from 2021-2022. Recent review volume is limited, which may not fully reflect current service quality.
• No reviews mention any service failures, callbacks for rework, or customer dissatisfaction, which is statistically uncommon for any service provider.

This WW Score of 93.2 is highly reliable based on 19 detailed reviews with consistent positive evidence across all dimensions; however, the absence of any negative feedback and concentration of older reviews suggest this score should be treated as a strong indicator of historical performance rather than a guarantee of current service quality.

Buttermore Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courteous communication, and a personable demeanor. Pricing is praised across a wide range of reviews, with multiple customers explicitly noting fair quotes, flat-rate transparency, and no hidden charges. Project completion scores are supported by numerous accounts of jobs finished on time, callbacks honored at no extra charge, and work that held up over time. Experience and workmanship are affirmed by reviewers describing skilled, efficient installations and problem-solving that other plumbers could not achieve. The primary caveat is that 44 of the 101 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', or near-blank), which limits the depth of evidence despite the high volume of reviews.

• 44 out of 101 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', or a single vague sentence). These were excluded from dimension scoring and reduce the overall evidentiary base.
• All reviews with usable text are rated 4.0 or 5.0 stars with no negative or mixed reviews present. While this may reflect genuine quality, the complete absence of critical feedback warrants mild caution.
• The majority of detailed, usable reviews are dated between 2012 and 2017, with only 2 reviews from 2022–2023. The most recent data is sparse, and the score may not fully reflect current service quality.
• Several reviews use similar phrasing around punctuality and professionalism, though most include specific job details (water heater installs, toilet replacements, etc.) that suggest authentic individual experiences rather than fabricated reviews.
• Recency warning: Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2023-01-16). The bulk of scored evidence is 5–10+ years old.

The WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of pattern consistency across usable reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given that nearly half of all reviews contain no scorable content and the most recent detailed feedback dates primarily from 2012–2017, leaving current service quality inadequately verified.

Superior Sewer & Drain Service demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism, experience, and project completion. Kevin and his team are consistently praised for punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and technical expertise across 52 reviews mentioning professionalism. Project completion is well-documented with 48 mentions showing jobs finished thoroughly and on time, including complex sewer line work and emergency services. Experience scores highly (90.0) based on 35 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving ability. Pricing presents the only concern, with a score of 72.0 based on 8 mentions—while most customers feel they receive fair value, three negative reviews specifically cite high costs ($500 for 30 minutes, $800 power cleaning with recurring issues, and one complaint about being overcharged). The WW Score of 87.2 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with strong execution, though pricing transparency and consistency warrant attention.

• Three negative reviews (1-star ratings on 2025-02-09, 2024-06-09, and 2017-11-29) cite pricing concerns or service quality issues; one alleges careless work and belligerence, another complains of high cost for brief service, and a third disputes the value of a $800 power cleaning recommendation that did not resolve recurring issues
• One review from 2021-06-04 reports complete non-responsiveness (no callback) for a service inquiry, suggesting potential communication gaps during high-demand periods
• Multiple empty review text fields (3 reviews with 5.0 ratings but no text) reduce data richness but do not indicate fake reviews since ratings are consistent with detailed reviews
• Review from 2024-02-01 references service from July 2023 but was posted much later, indicating potential review backlog
• No pattern of identical phrasing detected; reviews show natural variation in language and specific details, reducing fake review risk

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 64 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (35–52 mentions per dimension), predominantly from the past 5 years, and supported by consistent positive feedback on professionalism and execution; however, the pricing dimension (8 mentions, MODERATE confidence) and three documented service failures warrant caution regarding cost transparency and occasional quality inconsistencies.

Ed's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, excellent communication, and courteous demeanor across 78 reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are highly regarded (88.0 score, 52 mentions), with customers praising problem-solving ability and knowledge. However, project completion reliability is the primary concern (76.5 score, 68 mentions), with multiple documented instances of no-shows, rescheduling failures, and incomplete work—most notably a 2017 case where a sewer line was left partially cleared and a 2023 case involving multiple missed appointments. Pricing is perceived as fair to reasonable (81.0 score, 32 mentions), though some customers note higher costs. The business appears to struggle with capacity management and follow-through on commitments despite strong technical capabilities.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and rescheduling failures documented across different time periods (2023, 2019, 2016, 2012). Pattern suggests systemic scheduling/reliability issues independent of individual incidents.
• CRITICAL: 2017 review documents incomplete work with deceptive billing—customer charged for full job despite sewer line only partially cleared, leading to immediate backup and flooding. Customer reported Ed refused callback without additional payment.
• CRITICAL: 2023 review details four separate missed appointments over 4 weeks with inconsistent excuses (damaged phone, schedule conflicts, no communication). Suggests accountability issues.
• MODERATE: Three reviews with minimal/generic text ('.' or 'unknown') rated 5.0 (2016-07-17, 2016-07-15, 2016-06-03, 2016-04-20, 2015-07-01) may indicate fake or placeholder reviews, though not conclusive.
• MODERATE: Capacity constraints acknowledged in multiple reviews (2012, 2017) where Ed is 'very busy' causing delays. This is a structural business limitation affecting reliability.
• LIMITED: One 2015 review documents inadequate diagnosis—Ed tightened toilet tank fitting but missed overflow valve issue, resulting in $1,000+ insurance claim and rate increase two weeks later.
• LIMITED: 2017 review documents electrical safety hazard (sump pump cord rigged without proper length) that Ed did not disclose to customer, creating code violation and safety risk.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2011-2017). Recent reviews (2023-2024) show both exceptional service (same-day emergency response) and severe reliability failures (multiple no-shows). Current performance trajectory unclear.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with caution: while Ed's technical expertise and professionalism are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the project completion dimension is significantly undermined by documented no-shows, incomplete work, and deceptive billing practices that recur across multiple years, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues. The score reflects a contractor with excellent skills but serious reliability and accountability problems that directly contradict stated commitments.

Absolute Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and predominantly positive review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are bolstered by hundreds of mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointments without notification, and several accounts of rude or combative behavior from staff and owners — a pattern that appears across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Pricing receives the lowest score due to a notable minority of reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, non-itemized invoices, hidden fees, inflated service call charges, and pricing that felt inconsistent or deceptive; while many reviewers praise fair pricing, the negative pricing complaints are specific and credible enough to suppress the score. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as completed efficiently and thoroughly, though a handful of reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks needed, or jobs that failed within days. Experience scores well, with many reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, problem-solving, and technical knowledge across a wide variety of plumbing tasks.

• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 15 reviews across multiple years describe no-shows, missed appointments without any call, or plumbers arriving significantly late without notice. This is a persistent and credible operational weakness, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE: Multiple reviewers across different years cite non-itemized bills, unexpected charges for drive time, inflated parts markups, high service call fees, and pricing that felt inconsistent or deceptive. One reviewer was quoted $3,200 for a water heater; another paid $162 for a 15-minute repair. These are not vague complaints.
• RUDE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe rude, dismissive, or combative behavior from staff or owners — including hanging up on customers, refusing to answer questions, and making racially charged comments. These are serious professionalism flags.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW POOL: The review set references a very large number of different technician names (Jose, Howard, Bill, Edwin, Josh, Larry, Steve, Raul, Sean, Brett, Andy, Jared, Matthew, Nick, John, Justin, etc.) and spans geographies including California (Bay Area, San Diego, Lodi, Castro Valley), Texas (Flower Mound, DFW), and Illinois (Chicago suburbs). This strongly suggests these reviews are aggregated from multiple distinct business locations or franchises operating under the 'Absolute Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect any single location's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from approximately 2008 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are heavily weighted in this analysis. Older reviews (pre-2020) are present in large numbers and show similar patterns — both positive and negative — suggesting the operational issues are long-standing rather than recently resolved.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The majority of 5-star reviews contain specific technician names, job descriptions, and situational details, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, a subset of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great work', 'Hard worker gets the job done right', blank text with 5 stars) are present and contribute minor concern. Overall fake review risk is assessed as low to moderate.
• INCOMPLETE WORK INSTANCES: At least 3 reviews describe work that was left incomplete, required a return visit, or failed within days of completion — including a drain that re-blocked within 48 hours and a tankless water heater installation left unfinished for a month.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the very large review volume, but should be interpreted with caution given strong evidence that the review pool aggregates multiple distinct business locations operating under the same name, and given persistent credible complaints about appointment reliability, pricing transparency, and occasional staff conduct that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong positive sentiment.

Green Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. Pricing is generally viewed favorably with multiple mentions of fair and reasonable rates. However, project completion shows notable weakness due to several documented failures: incomplete work requiring callbacks, misdiagnosis of problems, lack of follow-through on promised detailed reports, and one instance of work abandonment. The company's track record is heavily skewed by older reviews (many from 2006-2015) with recent reviews (2024) being uniformly positive, suggesting possible service improvements or selection bias in recent feedback.

• RECENCY BIAS: 18 of 56 reviews are from 2024 and all are 5-star with detailed positive narratives. Reviews from 2006-2015 show more critical feedback and lower ratings (1-2 stars), suggesting either significant service improvement or that dissatisfied recent customers are not leaving reviews.
• MULTIPLE CRITICAL FAILURES DOCUMENTED: Four 1-star reviews detail serious issues—misdiagnosed water leak resulting in unnecessary main line cut and billing for non-resolution (2017), unprofessional emergency response with inadequate documentation (2015), incomplete toilet seal installation causing repeated flooding (2012), and defective hot water heater installation with poor customer service response (2010). These are specific, detailed complaints with clear evidence of project completion failures.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Review from 2015 documents worker unable to complete job, taking 3+ weeks with extended breaks, requiring contractor to hire landscaper to finish work, then billing extra $225 plus $50 for incomplete jackhammer use.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Two reviews (2016) explicitly state company promised callbacks that never occurred—'We discussed it and they said they would talk to the tech and call me back. Never heard from them. This is the second time.'
• GENERIC/VAGUE REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown' text or extremely brief statements ('They're the best. They are very good.') with no substantive detail, reducing data quality.
• CAPS-LOCK REVIEWS: Multiple reviews from 2006 are entirely in caps, suggesting possible automated or template-based submissions.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERN: One 1-star review (2012) documents owner throwing customers out of shop and threatening arrest when they complained about defective work.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent reviews (2024) are uniformly excellent and suggest current service quality is strong, the historical record (2006-2015) contains multiple documented failures in project completion, communication, and customer service recovery. The dramatic shift in review sentiment over time suggests either genuine improvement or that recent dissatisfied customers are not leaving reviews. The score reflects a company with strong technical skills and professionalism but a concerning history of incomplete work, misdiagnosis, and poor follow-through on commitments. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates and follow-up procedures before engaging.