Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, Delaware

The Drain Surgeon demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication across 58 reviews. Technical expertise is solid with 28 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion shows concerning gaps: multiple reviews document failures to follow through on promised callbacks, cleanup, and warranty work, with some jobs taking weeks longer than quoted. Pricing is a significant weakness, with 12 explicit mentions of unexpectedly high charges, deceptive pricing practices, and quotes 7x higher than competitors. The company shows high variability in service quality depending on which technician is assigned.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (12 mentions) explicitly cite unexpectedly high charges, deceptive pricing, and lack of transparency. One customer paid $220 for 5 minutes of work when quoted $85. Another received a quote 7x higher than a competitor for the same repair.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two detailed 1-star reviews document serious follow-through failures: one customer waited weeks for promised cleanup of concrete debris with technicians deliberately ignoring calls; another had a newly installed drain field leak with no response to multiple callback requests over weeks.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews report poor communication, failure to return calls, and lack of urgency. One customer reported technicians deliberately ignoring calls from their personal phone but answering from spouse's phone.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews explicitly note that service quality varies significantly by technician. One review states 'each one of these guys is an independent contractor. What you get with one, you may not get with all.'
• WORKMANSHIP ISSUES: Two reviews document incomplete or problematic work: one technician attempted to leave a leaking water line repair unfinished; another damaged customer property (toilet scratches, broken tree branches) during installation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 5 reviews (dated 2025-03-11) contain only 5-star ratings with minimal or no text content, and 7 additional reviews (2025-06-02, 2025-05-26, 2025-05-19, 2025-03-11) are completely blank with 5-star ratings. This represents 12 reviews (12% of dataset) with suspicious patterns suggesting potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly positive with minimal detail, while older reviews (2015-2022) contain more detailed negative experiences with specific pricing and service failures. This temporal pattern warrants caution.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 58 and 28 mentions respectively, the pricing dimension is based on only 12 mentions and shows consistent negative patterns. More critically, project completion failures are documented in detailed 1-star reviews describing serious follow-through and communication breakdowns, yet these represent only 35 mentions. The presence of 12 suspicious blank/minimal reviews (12% of dataset) and a clear recency bias toward generic 5-star reviews suggests the overall score may be artificially inflated. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written quotes and clarifying all terms before engaging this company, and should be prepared for potential communication and follow-through issues on larger projects.

May's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship, with consistent praise for quality work and fair pricing from long-term customers. However, the company exhibits a significant and recurring weakness in customer service responsiveness and communication, particularly at the receptionist/office level. Multiple reviews spanning 2018–2024 document instances of being turned away, ignored voicemails, unresponsive email communication, and dismissive phone interactions. While field technicians (Darren, Susan, Jamie, Blake, Dave) are frequently praised as professional, polite, and skilled, the office staff creates a bottleneck that damages the overall customer experience. The company appears to struggle with capacity management and follow-up protocols.

• RECURRING PATTERN: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention poor receptionist/office communication, being turned away, ignored emails, or rude phone interactions (2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-13, 2022-08-08, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-05-28). This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2018-06-11 and 2018-03-23 about Kohler valve stems and dishonesty appear to be the same review posted twice with nearly identical text. This reduces unique data points.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2024, 2023) show the same communication problems persist, the majority of highly positive reviews are from 2015–2020. Recent trend suggests deterioration in customer service.
• CAPACITY ISSUE: Multiple reviews indicate the company is 'too busy' and scheduling far out (mid-April to next month), suggesting they may be overextended and unable to serve all inquiries professionally.
• BILLING DISPUTE: One detailed review (2018) alleges dishonest billing practices and misrepresentation of parts used, though this is a single incident among many positive reviews.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 60 reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions (15–32 mentions per dimension), providing HIGH overall confidence. The score accurately reflects a company with excellent technical skills and pricing but significant, documented, and recurring customer service failures at the office level that substantially drag down the overall rating. The pattern of complaints is consistent enough to be credible and not attributable to isolated bad experiences.

SPS Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise with consistent positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished correctly on first attempt. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, inflated estimates, and poor value relative to competitors. The company shows polarized performance: excellent technical execution and customer service from named technicians (Reef, Jeremy, Aaron, Sal, Ken) contrasts sharply with aggressive pricing practices and occasional poor diagnostic accuracy. Recent reviews (2021-2022) show deteriorating customer satisfaction compared to historical performance.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (2021-2022) explicitly cite overpricing, inflated estimates, and aggressive upselling. Three separate customers reported being quoted 2-3x competitor prices for identical work. This is not isolated complaint but pattern.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most positive reviews are from 2015-2020 (older than 3 years). Recent reviews (2021-2022) are predominantly negative (1-star ratings). This suggests declining service quality or changing business practices.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Named technicians (Reef, Jeremy, Aaron, Sal) receive consistent praise, but technician 'Ed' appears in two separate 1-star reviews with identical complaints (overpricing, poor diagnostics, aggressive sales tactics). Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY: Two reviews document misdiagnosis or overcomplication of simple issues (capacitor presented as 'voltage enhancement system'; sewer line replacement quote later reduced by $2,000). Suggests either poor initial assessment or intentional upselling.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine specificity, varied language, and realistic detail. Positive reviews include specific names and technical details. Negative reviews provide invoice numbers and comparative quotes. This appears to be authentic feedback.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable but reflects a company in transition: strong technical capability and professionalism are undermined by significant pricing concerns and recent service deterioration. The HIGH overall confidence is justified by adequate mention counts across dimensions, but the score should be interpreted as 'good but with serious reservations about value.' Customers should expect quality work but should obtain multiple competitive quotes before engaging SPS, particularly for major projects.

Ben's ProServ earns strong marks for professionalism across a large volume of recent reviews, with many customers praising friendly, courteous, and communicative technicians by name. Pricing is a mixed picture — several reviewers called costs reasonable or fair, but at least two explicitly complained of overcharging or excessive emergency fees, pulling the score down meaningfully. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple negative reviews describe unresolved issues, a humidifier wired incorrectly and never tested, a persistent leak left unfixed, and a failed diagnostic visit — indicating a real pattern of incomplete or poor follow-through on some jobs. Experience scores moderately well overall given the volume of praise for knowledgeable technicians, but is tempered by credible accounts of technicians failing to diagnose basic problems (e.g., not checking a circuit breaker) and mishandling warranty parts.

• 6 reviews contained no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• The majority of 5-star reviews from 2025 follow a similar pattern of brief, name-specific praise with little detail, which may reflect a solicited review campaign. Confidence is maintained due to volume and some specificity, but this pattern is noted.
• Several negative reviews (1-star) are older (2020–2023) but describe serious issues: incomplete work, incorrect wiring, unresolved leaks, and a billing dispute. These are not isolated incidents and represent a meaningful pattern.
• One review explicitly describes a technician charging full price for a warranty-covered part and refusing to refund it — a significant integrity concern.
• One review describes a technician spending more time on off-topic conversation than diagnosing the HVAC issue, and the problem was never resolved.
• Recency note: The bulk of positive reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), while most negative reviews are from 2020–2024. This may indicate genuine improvement, or may reflect a more active recent review solicitation effort. Both interpretations are plausible.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review set (55 reviews, 49 with usable data) and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring negative patterns around project completion and billing integrity before hiring, as these issues appear across multiple independent reviewers over several years.

Brewer Heating and Cooling has a long track record of satisfied customers spanning nearly two decades, with consistent praise for punctuality, professionalism, and technical competence. The majority of reviews highlight courteous technicians, responsive emergency service, and thorough workmanship. However, several notable negative reviews meaningfully drag down the score: one describes a technician performing substandard AC maintenance with an improperly fitted filter and uncleaned coils; another details a deeply troubling experience involving a furnace cleaning that ended with a dismissive sales pitch and a technician telling the customer to 'ask your father in law' for help reconnecting their heat; and a long-term customer discovered 13 years post-installation that Brewer had left a return duct completely open, leading to mold and a costly remediation. Pricing received mixed signals — competitive quotes and warranty savings on one hand, but one customer felt Sunday overtime charges were excessive and potentially double-billed for labor. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths but real and documented quality-control failures that cannot be ignored.

• Several reviews contain no text beyond 'unknown' and a 5-star rating (2013-10-30, 2014-06-18) — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A disproportionate number of 5-star reviews from 2012–2014 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Went great from start to finish.', 'They did a great job, will have them back.') with no specifics — mild fake review concern, though not conclusive.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years; only 2 reviews are from 2020 or later, meaning recent performance data is very limited. The most recent review (2023) is a 1-star complaint.
• The 2011 duct installation review describes a serious workmanship failure discovered 13 years later — open return duct pulling crawl space air, no insulation on supply ducts, resulting in mold and asbestos exposure. This is a significant safety and quality flag.
• The 2021 furnace cleaning review describes a technician disconnecting wiring and shutting off the oil valve, then leaving the customer without heat and telling them to 'ask your father in law' to reconnect it — a serious professionalism and safety concern.
• The 2023 AC maintenance review alleges coils were not cleaned and a wrong-sized filter was forcibly installed — suggesting possible decline in technician quality or oversight in recent years.
• Recency warning: The trend of the three most recent substantive reviews (2023: 1-star, 2021: 2-star, 2022: 5-star) is mixed-to-negative, which may indicate a quality shift from the predominantly positive older reviews.

This WW Score is based on 36 usable reviews spanning approximately 17 years, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the fact that the vast majority of positive reviews are more than 5 years old, the three most recent substantive reviews include two serious complaints, and a small number of generic reviews raise mild fake-review concerns — consumers should weight the recent negative experiences heavily when making a hiring decision.

Cangemi Plumbing receives strong praise across nearly all dimensions, with customers consistently highlighting professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs from small repairs to full bathroom and kitchen remodels. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing costs well below competitor quotes. However, two reviews — one from 2015 and one from 2020 — describe serious failures in punctuality and follow-through, including no-shows and weeks of broken promises, which meaningfully drag down the project completion score. The bulk of the positive reviews are older than 12 months, with only two reviews from 2024 and one from 2022, making it harder to assess current performance with full confidence. The no-show complaints, while a minority, are specific and credible and cannot be dismissed.

• Two reviews (2015-03-18 and 2020-12-18) explicitly describe no-shows, failure to follow through, and lack of transparency — these are serious project completion concerns that are weighted accordingly.
• The majority of reviews (14 out of 18) are older than 3 years, with most clustering between 2012 and 2017. Only 3 reviews are from 2022 or later. Recency is a concern — current performance may differ from historical patterns.
• No strong fake review indicators detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, and tone. The two negative reviews add credibility to the overall dataset.
• Several reviews use hashtags or promotional-style language (e.g., '#ServiceStarShoutOut') which may indicate platform-prompted or incentivized reviews, though content remains specific enough to be considered usable.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, but the score should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of most reviews and two credible no-show complaints that suggest inconsistency in follow-through.