Find Nearby Plumbers In Washington, District Of Columbia

Master's Service Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with extensive positive feedback on knowledge, responsiveness, and punctuality. However, the score is significantly impacted by recurring project completion issues: multiple customers report incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and follow-up failures (2018-2019 reviews particularly damaging). Pricing feedback is mixed—many praise fair rates, but several customers cite unexpectedly high charges and aggressive upselling. The contractor excels at diagnosis and explanation but struggles with execution consistency and accountability when problems arise post-service.

• CRITICAL: Three severe negative reviews (2018-2019) document serious project completion failures: incomplete repairs, failed callbacks, poor workmanship requiring customer self-correction, and high charges for defective work. These are detailed, specific, and credible.
• Pattern of callback avoidance: Multiple reviews mention difficulty reaching the contractor for promised follow-up work or adjustments (2018 reviews, 2015 review).
• Pricing inconsistency: Several reviews mention unexpectedly high final charges, aggressive upselling, and charges for work that made problems worse rather than better.
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings (2016) lack detail and cannot be verified—minor concern but noted.
• Recency concern: Most recent detailed reviews are from 2023 and 2021 (positive), but serious failures documented in 2018-2019. Unclear if issues have been resolved.
• One review (2015-01-05) documents poor communication and unresponsiveness to initial inquiry, suggesting inconsistent customer service practices.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the contractor demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism in initial interactions, the documented pattern of incomplete work, failed callbacks, and poor resolution of problems—particularly in 2018-2019—raises serious concerns about follow-through and accountability. The HIGH confidence reflects substantial review volume, but the presence of multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describing significant failures means this score likely understates execution risk. Customers should verify recent performance and establish clear completion/callback expectations in writing before engaging.

The Plumbing Dr demonstrates strong professionalism, technical expertise, and project completion capabilities, with most technicians receiving praise for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers reporting substantially higher quotes than competitors and concerns about aggressive upselling tactics. The company excels at responsiveness and work quality but struggles with transparent, competitive pricing. Recent reviews (2025) show serious service failures including miscommunication, missing parts, and cancelled jobs, which temper the otherwise positive historical track record.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 25+ reviews explicitly cite overpricing, with customers reporting quotes 2-4x higher than competitors. Examples include $972 for tightening a valve, $2000 for a $119 faucet, $1700 for valve tightening, and $4500 for a $1000 water heater. This pattern is consistent across multiple years.
• RECENT SERVICE FAILURES (2025): Two identical 1-star reviews from April 2025 describe a catastrophic service call where technicians arrived unprepared (missing parts despite assurances), took extended lunch breaks, and the customer cancelled mid-service. This represents a sharp departure from historical quality.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Multiple reviews (2017-2020) describe high-pressure sales tactics, including presenting tiered pricing options with service contracts for simple jobs, recommending unnecessary replacements, and using iPads to display inflated quotes.
• INCONSISTENT OFFICE COMMUNICATION: Several reviews cite office staff failures including not passing along customer messages to dispatchers, poor follow-up on callbacks, and lack of responsiveness to scheduling issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 7, 2023 are suspiciously clustered with identical formatting, generic praise, and minimal specificity. Many contain only 1-2 sentences with no detail. This concentration warrants caution.
• LICENSING CONCERNS: One detailed 2015 review alleges that a technician signed as 'Dr. Matt' was actually a plumber's helper without a Class C license, raising questions about credential accuracy.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE VARIABILITY: Office staff receive both high praise and harsh criticism across reviews, suggesting inconsistent training or staffing changes.
• HISTORICAL PRICING DISPUTES: Complaints about pricing appear consistently from 2012-2025, indicating this is a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be interpreted with caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in execution, the pervasive and consistent pricing complaints across 15+ years, combined with recent 2025 service failures and suspicious review clustering, significantly undermine confidence in the overall reliability of this score. The company appears to deliver quality work but at prices customers consistently perceive as unfair, and recent service quality has deteriorated noticeably.

Cardinal Plumbing Heating & Air demonstrates strong professionalism and technical experience across the vast majority of reviews, with technicians consistently praised for being courteous, punctual, communicative, and knowledgeable. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished thoroughly, though a meaningful minority of reviews cite no-shows, missed appointments, abandoned or incomplete work, and at least one instance of a job requiring a return visit to fix a prior error. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is explicitly flagged as excessive or unfair in a substantial number of reviews — with multiple customers reporting charges two to four times higher than competitors for identical work, and several noting upselling behavior or pressure tactics. While the company appears to recover well when escalated to ownership, the pattern of pricing complaints and occasional reliability failures is too consistent to ignore.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: A significant number of reviews (15+) explicitly describe Cardinal's pricing as excessive, double or triple competitor rates, or describe feeling scammed or taken advantage of. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary repairs or replacements (e.g., full water heater replacement when only a mixing valve was needed, full furnace replacement when unit was functioning normally, full toilet rebuild when only a flapper was needed). One review alleges a technician fabricated a CO2 leak to sell a $7,000 furnace replacement.
• RELIABILITY / NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe missed appointments, same-day cancellations, or being bumped from the schedule without adequate notice. One reviewer was no-call/no-showed twice consecutively.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 2 reviews describe jobs that were not completed as agreed — one involving a sump pump pit left cracked, another involving a multi-week delay to resolve a water main leak with a 5-foot hole left in the yard.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Cardinal Plumbing was able to unclog our kitchen sink...') appear on different dates (2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05). This may indicate a copied or reposted review and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25 reviews contained no text — only a star rating (mostly 5 stars). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 and late 2024, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative patterns (pricing, upselling, no-shows) persist across all time periods from 2018 through 2025, suggesting these are structural issues rather than isolated incidents.
• COMMISSION-BASED INCENTIVE RISK: At least one detailed review explicitly states that Cardinal employees work on commission, which the reviewer believes incentivizes upselling and potentially dishonest diagnoses. This is consistent with the upselling pattern observed across multiple reviews.

The WW Score of 76.4 is based on a large volume of reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, consumers should weigh the score alongside the significant and recurring pricing and upselling warnings, which represent a material risk that the score alone does not fully capture.

Capitol Handyman & Plumbing has a strong overall track record across a large review base, with the majority of customers praising David and his team for responsiveness, punctuality, and quality workmanship on a wide variety of plumbing and handyman tasks. Project completion scores well because reviewers consistently describe jobs being finished thoroughly, on time, and with follow-through — including complex multi-scope projects. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of communication failures: multiple reviewers (across different years) report being ignored, not called back, or receiving poor scheduling follow-through, and two reviews describe outright rude or dismissive phone behavior. Pricing is the weakest dimension — while many reviewers describe transparent upfront quotes and fair value, a notable minority flag high labor costs, one suspected unnecessary upsell, and one instance of a $550 charge for under an hour of work, preventing a higher score. Experience scores well due to numerous specific mentions of skilled diagnosis, problem-solving on complex or historic-home issues, and quality workmanship, though this is tempered slightly by one review describing a shower that was left in worse condition after the visit.

• COMMUNICATION PATTERN WARNING: At least 5 separate reviews across multiple years (2021-05-25, 2021-07-13, 2021-07-08, 2022-05-25, and implicitly the 2022-04-08 phone rudeness review) explicitly cite poor responsiveness, failure to return calls/emails, or scheduling abandonment. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents, and meaningfully suppresses the professionalism score.
• PRICING CONCERN: Three reviews flag potentially excessive pricing — $550 for under 1 hour of work (2018-05-19), $5,000 labor quote for door installation (2019-06-03), and one reviewer questioning whether additional parts were truly necessary (2022-10-14). These are spread across years and suggest occasional pricing inconsistency.
• NEGATIVE SERVICE OUTCOME: One detailed 1-star review (2018-08-11) describes a shower being left in worse condition after the visit, David allegedly yelling at the customer, and a refusal to remedy the issue. This is a serious workmanship and professionalism flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2017–2022, with only 4 reviews dated within the past 12 months (2024-2025 window). The most recent reviews (2024) are positive, but the sample is thin for current performance assessment. Older reviews carry reduced weight per scoring rules.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC PRAISE: A small number of reviews (e.g., 2017-01-26, 2018-01-07, 2017-07-28 follow-up) are brief, lack specific detail, and read as generic endorsements. These were included but treated as lower-evidential-weight entries. No strong fake review pattern detected overall given the volume of highly specific, detailed reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (83 reviews) spanning approximately 7 years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring communication and responsiveness complaints seriously, as they represent a documented and repeated pattern rather than outlier incidents.

A's Irrigation has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across irrigation, lighting, and landscaping projects. However, two significant negative reviews — one describing an incomplete installation where lines were left unconnected and money taken without finishing the job, and another detailing a technically improper repair using pipe joint compound instead of plumber's tape — meaningfully drag down both the project completion and experience scores. Communication failures also appear in multiple negative reviews, including a no-show for an estimate appointment and prolonged unresponsiveness, which temper the otherwise positive professionalism picture. The business shows a pattern of strong performance when engaged but inconsistent follow-through on problem resolution, which is a meaningful reliability concern. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to reflect that negative experiences, while fewer in number, describe serious failures rather than minor inconveniences.

• Two reviews (2022-05-04 and 2022-05-02) describe serious project completion failures: one involving an incomplete installation with lines left unconnected after payment, and one involving a technically improper repair. These are weighted heavily against project completion and experience scores.
• One review (2021-05-01) describes a no-show for a scheduled estimate appointment with no intelligible follow-up communication, indicating a recurring responsiveness issue.
• The negative review from 2022-05-02 appears to be an update to a prior review, suggesting the reviewer gave the company a chance to correct the issue but found the fix inadequate — this is treated as a distinct and credible data point.
• Several positive reviews are older than 3 years (2019–2021), and the most recent negative reviews are from 2022. Only two reviews are from 2024, limiting confidence in the company's current performance trajectory.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Positive reviews vary in detail, specificity, and writing style, lending them reasonable credibility.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given that the most detailed negative reviews describe serious failures in project completion and technical workmanship, and the review set skews older with limited recent data.

Fry Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and responsiveness, with strong marks for experience and workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by recurring professionalism and project completion issues, particularly around no-shows, missed callbacks, and pricing transparency. While many recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal a persistent pattern of scheduling failures and billing disputes that cannot be ignored. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, with customers reporting unexpected charges and lack of upfront transparency. The company's honest approach to avoiding unnecessary upselling is a genuine strength, but operational inconsistencies undermine overall reliability.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2010, 2013, 2018) report no-shows and missed callbacks despite scheduled appointments. This is a recurring operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING DISPUTES: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention unexpected charges, price changes after quotes, or lack of transparency about service minimums vs. quoted rates. This is a significant red flag.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Several reviews report rude or condescending behavior from staff (2016, 2018, 2023), and one detailed account of owner using profanity and calling customer a liar (2016).
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Reviews from 2024-2025 are predominantly 5-star with detailed positive feedback. Reviews from 2010-2018 contain multiple 1-star ratings with serious complaints. This suggests either significant company improvement OR potential review manipulation in recent period. Recommend caution.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews document unfinished callbacks or abandoned work (2010 knob replacement, 2013 callback for toilet leaks, 2018 no-show for scheduled appointment).
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text, only ratings (all 5-star). These provide no evidentiary value and slightly reduce data quality.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive and suggest operational improvement, the company has a documented history of scheduling failures, billing disputes, and professionalism lapses spanning multiple years. The stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and older critical reviews warrants skepticism about consistency. Customers should verify pricing in writing before work begins and confirm appointment windows with a callback reminder.