Find Nearby Plumbers In Dover, Delaware

Eashum demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for courteous, responsive technicians and efficient scheduling across multiple reviews. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, with customers noting costs below expectations. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished promptly and follow-through on additional work. However, one significant 1-star review from 2012 raises concerns about diagnostic accuracy and technical judgment—a technician recommended an unnecessary $4,250 well replacement when the actual issue was a worn pump. This outlier substantially impacts the experience score and overall confidence, as it suggests potential gaps in technical problem-solving despite mostly positive feedback on workmanship.

• One stark outlier: 1-star review (2012) describing misdiagnosis and unnecessary upselling, contrasting sharply with seven 5-star reviews. This suggests either a significant quality variance or a past service failure that may or may not reflect current operations.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (5 of 8 reviews predate 2023). Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 1 from 2023 provide recent data. Recency weighting favors the recent positive reviews.
• Seven consecutive 5-star reviews with uniformly positive language could indicate selection bias (satisfied customers more likely to review), though language varies enough to suggest genuine reviews rather than fabricated ones.
• The 2012 negative review is substantially older and may not reflect current company practices or personnel.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews (2023–2024) are consistently positive and support an 85+ score, the presence of a serious diagnostic failure from 2012 and the small sample size of recent data (only 3 reviews in past 18 months) prevent full confidence. The company appears to have strong professionalism and pricing, but technical judgment warrants verification through additional recent feedback.

Reynolds Plumbing scores well across all four dimensions based on consistent positive feedback spanning multiple reviews. Professionalism and experience are the strongest signals, with reviewers repeatedly noting punctuality, responsiveness, clean work habits, and technical competence — including going above and beyond on access panel installations. Pricing receives a slightly more conservative score because one reviewer found their recommendations expensive enough to decline the work, tempering an otherwise positive pricing narrative. Project completion scores well given evidence of multi-visit follow-through, cleanup, and honoring callbacks, though the limited number of mentions keeps confidence at MODERATE. The primary caveat is that all reviews are between 11 and 15 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL 6 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 10 YEARS — the most recent review is from September 2013 and the oldest is from 2008. This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current quality.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.
• Small sample size of only 6 reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.
• No negative reviews present across any dimension — while this may reflect genuine quality, it could also reflect selection bias in the review source or an incomplete review dataset.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review sample and the fact that all reviews are over a decade old, making it unsuitable as a current performance indicator without supplementary recent data.

C&B Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courteous behavior, and quality workmanship. However, a serious 1-star review from October 2024 — the most recent review — alleges non-payment to a worker and describes the owner in highly negative terms, which meaningfully drags down confidence in professionalism and integrity. Pricing is generally described as reasonable or fair, with one reviewer noting a higher cost on an emergency call, which is understandable context. Two reviews are exact duplicates (same text, same date, different timestamps), and two reviews consist only of a period with no content, which reduces the pool of genuinely usable data and raises mild authenticity concerns.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-07-07 are word-for-word identical. This inflates positive sentiment and may indicate a fake or double-submitted review. Scores adjusted conservatively.
• TWO CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Reviews from 2016-06-23 and 2016-01-29 contain only a period ('.') with no usable information. These were excluded from scoring.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG — MOST RECENT REVIEW (2024-10-07): The only review from the past 12 months is a 1-star allegation of non-payment to a worker and describes the contractor as 'rude,' 'disrespectful,' and 'scum.' This is a significant red flag that is not offset by older positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2020 or earlier, meaning most favorable data is 4+ years old. The business's current quality and conduct cannot be reliably inferred from this older data.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large number of 5-star reviews were posted on the same date (2020-02-17), which may suggest solicited or coordinated reviews. These were included but noted as a concern.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while historical reviews suggest a competent and professional operation, the most recent review raises a serious conduct concern, duplicate reviews inflate positive signals, and the bulk of positive data is over four years old, making current reliability difficult to assess.

FH Furr demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise with courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate well and show up on time in most cases. However, the company is severely undermined by widespread pricing complaints—customers consistently report being charged 3-10x market rates for routine services, with aggressive upselling tactics and lack of transparency. Project completion is inconsistent, with multiple reports of scheduling failures, no-shows, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and incomplete work. The sharp divide between positive recent reviews (mostly 5-star with minimal detail) and detailed negative reviews from 2023-2024 suggests a company with excellent field technicians but serious operational and billing integrity issues.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 25+ reviews from June 2025 (future date) with identical 5-star ratings, minimal detail, and generic praise. These appear to be fake or artificially generated reviews. Confidence in recent positive scores should be significantly discounted.
• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: 16 reviews explicitly document egregious overcharging—$1,105 for a $96 faucet, $725 vs $600 quoted, $1,800 AC repair vs $350 competitor fix, $700 for simple element replacement, $4,500 water heater vs $1,100 market price. This is not isolated; it is systemic.
• RESPONSIVENESS CRISIS: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) document complete failure to return calls, follow up on complaints, honor callbacks, and respond to service requests. One customer waited 2 weeks with no response; another never received promised follow-up from owner.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Documented cancellations 1 hour before appointments, no-shows without notification, rescheduling 4-6 weeks out, and explicit contradiction of weekend service availability despite website claims.
• POST-ACQUISITION DECLINE: Multiple reviews note deterioration after FH Furr acquired McGee's and Red Dog. Customers report the technicians (inherited from acquisitions) are good, but company operations are predatory.
• QUALITY CONCERNS: One customer reported AC repair that failed in 5 days; another reported incomplete work (no flushing, no testing) and suspicious thermostat failures immediately after service.
• RECENCY BIAS: All positive reviews are dated June 2025 (impossible/future dates) or May 2025. Negative reviews span 2023-2024 with specific dates and details. This temporal pattern strongly suggests fake recent reviews masking real operational problems.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution. While the numerical score of 62.8 reflects genuine data from 67 reviews, the dataset is heavily contaminated by what appears to be 25+ fabricated 5-star reviews with future dates and generic language. The authentic negative reviews from 2023-2024 are detailed, specific, and consistent in documenting systemic pricing abuse, scheduling failures, and unresponsiveness. The true operational score is likely 15-20 points lower than reported. Customers should independently verify pricing, obtain multiple quotes, and check recent reviews on third-party platforms before engaging this company.

Associates Contracting shows genuine technical competence and fair pricing when work is actually completed, with multiple reviewers praising skilled technicians like Steve and noting prices well below competitor bids. However, two detailed 1-star reviews describe a serious and apparently recurring pattern of non-responsiveness: failing to deliver quotes, ignoring repeated follow-up calls, and abandoning agreed-upon work entirely — one reviewer explicitly noted this seems to be a company-wide pattern. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by these communication and follow-through failures, even though individual technicians on-site are often described positively. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because abandoned estimates and ghosted clients represent a fundamental failure to deliver, not merely a minor inconvenience. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with real capability but an unreliable intake and follow-through process that creates meaningful risk for prospective customers.

• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with no text content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• The majority of reviews are from 2012–2018, with only one review from the past 12 months (2021). The score may not reflect current business performance.
• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe an identical pattern: contractor visits, then goes completely silent on quotes and scheduling. One reviewer explicitly states 'apparently this is a recurring thing with this company,' suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• The positive reviews, while genuine in tone and specific in detail, are heavily skewed toward on-site technician quality and do not address the intake/scheduling process that the negative reviews flag — this asymmetry should be noted.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, rating, and writing style, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the technical and pricing dimensions are well-supported by specific, credible reviews, but the project completion and professionalism scores are significantly influenced by two detailed negative reviews describing a systemic follow-through problem, and the recency of data is poor with most reviews being 5–11 years old.

Service Today demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence, with technicians consistently praised for politeness, knowledge, and courteous behavior. However, the company is severely undermined by widespread pricing complaints—the most dominant theme across reviews. Customers repeatedly report being charged 5-10x market rates for simple repairs (e.g., $274 for a $25-30 capacitor, $508 for a $5-10 wax ring replacement, $545 for basic PVC fitting work). Project completion is inconsistent, with multiple reports of no-shows, incomplete work, and poor follow-through on callbacks. The company appears to employ aggressive upselling tactics and lacks transparency in billing, creating a pattern of customer distrust despite individual technician quality.

• SYSTEMATIC OVERPRICING: 68 reviews explicitly mention excessive pricing, with documented markups of 400-1000% on parts and labor. This is the dominant complaint pattern.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-09 through 2025-06-02 show highly repetitive language ('very polite and professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'detailed oriented') with identical phrasing across multiple reviews and all 5-star ratings with minimal detail. At least 12 reviews appear artificially clustered with near-identical wording. Confidence in positive ratings from this period should be significantly reduced.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Multiple reviews (2023-05-30, 2023-05-14, 2022-01-09, 2020-07-29) describe technicians recommending unnecessary parts, showing fake pictures of mold, or pressuring customers into expensive system replacements when problems don't exist.
• POOR FOLLOW-UP: At least 15 reviews document failure to return calls, reschedule appointments, or honor commitments. Customer service responsiveness is a recurring failure point.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: Multiple reviews (2024-06-06, 2023-12-15, 2023-12-01) report scheduled appointments with no technician arrival and poor communication.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURES: Several reviews report work that failed within days (2025-01-07 leak within two days, 2023-04-26 capacitor issues, 2020-05-25 system made worse) and incomplete installations.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025-06-09 to 2025-05-07) are heavily positive but show suspicious clustering and repetitive language, suggesting potential review manipulation. Older reviews (2024 and earlier) show more balanced criticism with specific pricing complaints.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE IMPACT: Multiple reviews note company was purchased by larger entity and service quality/pricing declined significantly after acquisition.

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with caution due to suspected review manipulation in the most recent batch (June 2025), but the overall assessment is reliable because pricing complaints are extensively documented with specific examples across 68 independent reviews spanning multiple years, and project completion issues are corroborated across dozens of detailed accounts. The company demonstrates competent technicians but systematic business practices that prioritize revenue extraction over customer value, making it a high-risk service provider despite individual technician quality.