Find Nearby Plumbers In Deltona, Florida

Plumber Near Me LLC earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, friendly communication, and same-day availability. Experience and workmanship are frequently cited positively, with named technicians like Dewey, Casey, Aidan, and others receiving consistent praise for technical skill and clear explanations. However, pricing is a significant drag on the score: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly called out quotes as extremely high, non-transparent, or unreasonable, and several negative reviews describe being charged for incomplete or no work. Project completion is also mixed — while most jobs are described as finished promptly, there are credible complaints about technicians not returning as promised, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and one instance of a repair that immediately leaked after completion. The combination of strong positive volume and a meaningful cluster of serious negative experiences produces a moderate-to-good but not excellent overall score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing replacement of a leaking outdoor hose bib (Casey, same-day service, 20-minute job) appears verbatim twice — once dated 2025-05-10 and once dated 2024-07-08. This is a copy-paste duplicate and one instance has been discounted.
• CLUSTER OF SAME-DATE REVIEWS: A large number of reviews (approximately 20+) share the exact date of 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10. While not all are identical in content, this clustering pattern is unusual and may indicate a coordinated review push or incentivized review campaign. Confidence in this subset is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE RECURRING AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025) explicitly cite overpricing, lack of transparency, or being charged for work not completed. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONMENT AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2024-07-02, 2023-08-17, 2025-05-10) describe the company failing to follow up, not returning as promised, or charging fees without completing work. This is a notable reliability concern.
• FAILED REPAIR REPORTED: One reviewer (2025-03-11) paid $570 for a PVC repair that leaked immediately upon water restoration, and the company was slow to honor the warranty callback.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review (2024-06-28) describes a technician named Adam behaving rudely, dismissively, and unprofessionally toward an elderly customer. This is an outlier but a serious one.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One review (2019-02-13) alleges a technician named Shawn stole money and never returned a promised refund. This is unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews predate 2023 and some predate 2021. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a mix of strong positives and notable negatives, suggesting performance may be inconsistent rather than uniformly improving.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (110 reviews) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints, documented no-show and abandonment incidents, and the suspicious same-date review clustering before making a hiring decision.

Total Comfort demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in service delivery, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and courteous behavior. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—numerous customers report markups of 5-10x on parts (capacitors, thermostats, switches) and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is generally solid, though some customers report delayed callbacks and follow-up issues. The company shows a stark divide between excellent field technician performance and problematic office/sales practices, particularly around transparency and fair pricing.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2016-2023) report identical complaint pattern—small parts marked up 400-900% (e.g., $11 capacitor charged at $495, $50 thermostat at $240-$379, $75 part at $379). This is not isolated; at least 15+ reviews cite this specific issue.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK—MODERATE: Cluster of 40+ reviews dated 2023-06-07 with identical 5-star ratings, minimal detail, and generic praise ('Great service,' 'Good,' blank text). Many lack substantive content. This date concentration is suspicious and suggests bulk positive reviews.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: Multiple reports of improper installation (wrong wiring, incorrect ductwork, leaking systems post-install, missing components). At least 8 reviews cite installation defects requiring rework.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Recurring complaints about lack of callback, unresponsive office staff, and failure to honor warranty/service commitments. At least 12 reviews cite this.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: Several customers report quoted prices that increased significantly at time of service, with office staff dismissive of complaints.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between field technician professionalism (often 5-star) and office/management behavior (often 1-star). Suggests systemic management/sales culture issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative pricing/conduct reviews are from 2015-2023. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive but include the suspicious 2023-06-07 cluster.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but masks significant operational risk: while technician competence and professionalism are genuinely high (HIGH confidence), pricing practices are predatory and systematically exploit customer trust, and office responsiveness is inconsistent. Customers should expect excellent field work but should obtain detailed written quotes, verify part costs independently, and be prepared to dispute charges. The company's overall trustworthiness is compromised by the pricing pattern, which appears deliberate rather than isolated.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

Prestige Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning many years, with recurring praise for responsiveness, punctuality, technical skill, and fair pricing across dozens of detailed reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including serious allegations of price gouging, bait-and-switch pricing, no-shows, abandoned jobs, rude behavior, and poor workmanship — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing in particular is a split dimension: many customers praised affordability and transparency, while several others explicitly described being charged double quoted amounts, overcharged for unrendered services, or pressured into expensive unnecessary work. Project completion is similarly mixed, with multiple reviews describing technicians who failed to return to finish jobs, ghosted customers after quoting, or left work incomplete. The experience dimension scores highest, as the majority of detailed reviews affirm genuine technical competence, but a handful of reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, faulty repairs, and property damage during work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical 'Poor quality of work' reviews on 2024-08-22, two identical 'Chico and crew did amazing work' reviews on 2023-01-16 and 2023-01-17, two identical 'Nick was great to deal with' reviews on 2024-05-29, two identical 'Very good job with good workmanshif' reviews on 2024-05-31, two identical 'Did excellent job' reviews on 2024-05-30, two identical 'Everything was fine' reviews on 2024-06-05, two identical 'So professional' reviews on 2024-06-03, two identical 'The plumber did a good job' reviews on 2024-07-22, two identical 'I spoke with Nick' reviews on 2024-08-04, two identical 'I had a great experience with Prestige Plumbing, thanks to Chico' reviews on 2024-09-03 and 2024-09-12, and two identical 'Shout out to Scott' reviews on 2023-12-01). These duplicates inflate the positive review count and reduce reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-02 through 2025-06-08 contain very short, generic, low-detail praise (e.g., 'LUIS IS THE BEST', 'Amazing Work by Luis great service', 'A good job y professional', 'Thank you Christian Correa!'). Several of these contain no substantive detail about the job performed, which is consistent with solicited or incentivized review patterns. Confidence in this recent cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text at all (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE ALLEGATIONS: Multiple 1-star reviews allege bait-and-switch pricing (quoted $450, charged $3,550+), double-charging after seeing a veteran's license plate, charging for services not rendered, no-shows on multiple scheduled appointments, ghosting customers after quoting, a technician who refused to complete work and left a mess, and a plumber who called a customer's husband a liar and treated a woman disrespectfully. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years.
• ROAD CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 3 separate reviews (2020, 2024, 2024) describe reckless or aggressive driving behavior by company vehicle operators, including speeding at 90mph with unsecured loads, cutting lanes, and road rage incidents. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference many different named technicians and locations (Hawaii, Florida, California, North Carolina), suggesting this may be a franchise, aggregated listing, or name-shared business rather than a single contractor. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect multiple distinct operations under one brand name.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are disproportionately short and generic, while the most detailed and credible reviews — both positive and negative — span 2019 through 2024. The 2025 cluster shows hallmarks of a review solicitation campaign and should be weighted lower.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a suspected solicited-review campaign in the most recent period, serious and recurring negative allegations across multiple years, and strong evidence that this listing may aggregate reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same name.

Bob's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly technicians — many reviewers mention using the company for years or decades. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and credible pattern of complaints about rude office/receptionist staff, with at least 7 distinct reviews citing dismissive or unprofessional phone interactions. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers with specific detail allege overbilling, undisclosed credit card surcharges, quotes not honored, and charges significantly exceeding estimates — these are not vague complaints but include documented evidence such as Ring doorbell footage and itemized disputes. Project completion scores moderately well, with most jobs described as finished promptly, but there are notable failures including a misdiagnosed water heater issue requiring a second plumber, an abandoned leak, a shower pan installed without proper floor support, and at least one no-show appointment. Experience scores positively overall, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe incorrect installations or work that had to be redone.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review about a tub drain line leak saving $450 (Mike, Frank) appears verbatim twice with different dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-08-02). The negative water heater review ('Quoted $950, Tech installed without a pan, then told me $1150') also appears verbatim twice with different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-02-26). The negative water heater misdiagnosis review ('Bob's came out and moved our downstairs Water Heater...') appears verbatim twice (2022-06-10 and 2021-07-06). These duplicates suggest either review platform artifacts or potential manipulation and have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW DETECTED: One 5-star review (2024-06-09) references a 'tea room,' 'cucumber finger sandwiches,' and 'walking the zoo' — this is clearly a review left for the wrong business and was excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECEPTIONIST/OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: At least 7 distinct reviews specifically cite rude, dismissive, or unprofessional behavior from the person answering the phone. This is a consistent and credible pattern that materially lowers the professionalism score.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple detailed, credible reviews allege overbilling by hours (supported by Ring doorbell footage in one case), quotes not honored (job went from $2,700 to $4,200 in one review; $950 quote became $1,150 in another), undisclosed credit card surcharges, and material prices charged at double retail. These are serious and specific allegations that significantly reduce the pricing score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2014 to 2025. Reviews from 2014–2019 are given reduced weight. The majority of reviews are from 2021 onward. Negative pricing and professionalism complaints are present across multiple recent years (2022–2025), suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW-MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 contain very generic, short praise with no specifics ('Great work,' 'amazing love them,' 'Reliable, do good work,' 'Excellent service! You cannot beat it!'). While not conclusive, the identical dates and lack of detail for multiple reviews in these clusters is a mild flag. Confidence is not significantly reduced given the large volume of detailed, specific reviews overall.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (155 reviews spanning 2014–2025) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a clearly irrelevant review, a persistent pattern of credible pricing complaints with documented specifics, and recurring office staff professionalism issues that represent a genuine and ongoing operational weakness.