Find Nearby Plumbers In Doral, Florida

This contractor has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, professionalism, clear communication, and technical skill across a wide variety of plumbing jobs. Pricing is generally described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with a few reviewers specifically calling out affordable or honest pricing. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by five serious negative reviews documenting repeated no-shows, failure to respond after promising service, an incomplete repair that required a second visit with an additional charge, a misdiagnosed root cause, and a botched repair using the wrong part. These failures are not minor — two involve emergency situations where vulnerable individuals were left without water, and one involves a contractor who became unresponsive after faulty work. The recency split is also notable: the bulk of the most recent reviews (2025) are highly generic and pattern-consistent, raising a fake review flag that reduces confidence in the top-end scores.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: The 16 reviews dated between 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-06 show highly repetitive structure and phrasing — nearly every one includes 'arrived promptly,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional,' and 'explained everything clearly.' Several are nearly identical in sentence construction despite covering different job types. No reviewer names are mentioned, no specific technician is identified, and no unique detail distinguishes one review from another. This pattern is consistent with artificially generated or incentivized reviews and has been factored into scoring conservatively.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2019-08-23, 2019-11-04, 2021-11-29) document the company failing to show up after confirming an appointment, with no follow-up communication. One of these involved a terminally ill patient requiring urgent plumbing access. This is a serious and recurring project completion failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / MISDIAGNOSIS: One review (2023-07-20) documents a plumber charging $350 for a repair that failed within two weeks, then demanding $375 more for the same issue. The reviewer also questioned the accuracy of the initial diagnosis. A second review (2015-09-11) documents a repair using the wrong part, a recurring leak, and the plumber refusing to return or accept responsibility.
• RECENCY BIAS: The majority of reviews from 2025 are flagged as potentially inauthentic (see above). The most credible detailed reviews span 2014–2024. Scores have been moderated to avoid over-weighting the 2025 review cluster.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS / POSSIBLE MULTI-OPERATOR BUSINESS: Reviews reference at least five different named individuals — David, Adam, Dominick, Luis, Gonzo, Alberto, and Doug — suggesting this may be a multi-technician operation or an aggregated profile. Quality and reliability appear to vary significantly by technician, which limits the usefulness of a single aggregate score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is materially reduced by a cluster of suspected fake 5-star reviews in 2025, a documented pattern of no-shows across multiple years, and confirmed instances of incomplete or faulty work — consumers should weight the negative reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

D&D Plumbing demonstrates strong individual technician performance — Albert, Johnny, Kyle, Juan, Scott, and Jerry are repeatedly praised for professionalism, technical knowledge, and responsiveness — but the company is significantly dragged down by a persistent and well-documented pattern of failing to return calls and deliver estimates, which directly harms both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers praised fair or low pricing, while multiple others reported surprise charges (travel time billed as labor, undisclosed fees, and one egregious case where a $6,700 replacement was recommended for what turned out to be a $40 loose fuse fix). Project completion is hurt by at least three credible accounts of work failing shortly after completion with poor warranty follow-through, and multiple reviews citing abandoned estimates or no-call-no-shows. Experience scores are buoyed by genuinely impressive technical work on complex radiant/hydronic and solar systems, but undermined by at least two cases of misdiagnosis or incomplete investigation.

• 14 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• 3 reviews contain only punctuation or single words ('unknown', '.', '............') and were treated as no usable data.
• Recurring pattern of no-callback complaints across multiple years (2013, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025) — this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2020-07-07) alleges D&D quoted $6,700 for a repair that an electrician fixed for $40 by tightening a loose fuse. D&D refused to itemize parts and labor. This is a serious credibility and pricing integrity concern.
• One review (2017-03-03) describes $1,500 in repairs that failed within two days, with D&D demanding additional after-hours charges to return and fix their own work — corroborated by a similar complaint in 2021.
• One review (2017-05-09) describes technician-caused damage to hardwood floors during a remodel, with D&D refusing to compensate and the VP dismissing the damage.
• Some older 5-star reviews (2016–2017) with no text may inflate perceived volume of positive sentiment — they carry no scoring weight here.
• The duplicate review (Scott fixing bathtub faucet, Friday 8pm) appears verbatim in both 2022 and 2023 — this is a likely copy-paste duplicate and was counted only once.
• No fake review pattern detected among text-bearing reviews — specific names, dates, and job details are present throughout, suggesting authentic reviews overall.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show the no-callback issue persists, suggesting it has not been resolved.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of no-callbacks, warranty disputes, and at least one serious pricing integrity concern that suggest operational inconsistencies beyond what the aggregate score alone conveys.

MJ Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and thorough work. Technical expertise is evident in complex diagnostics and system installations. However, pricing emerges as a significant concern, with one detailed review citing substantially high quotes ($550 for a stopper, $220 for drain clearing) that the customer perceived as excessive. The company's responsiveness was also questioned in one older review involving multiple unreturned calls. Overall performance is solid but tempered by pricing transparency issues and one notable service failure.

• PRICING CONCERN: One substantive 2020 review explicitly criticizes pricing as excessive ($770 total for two tasks) and inflexible, contrasting sharply with positive reviews that mention 'reasonable' costs without detail. This suggests pricing may be inconsistent or context-dependent.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: 2016 review documents three unanswered calls over three days with no callback, representing a significant service failure. Company later cited equipment issues, but lack of proactive communication was problematic.
• RECENCY BIAS: 4 of 9 reviews are older than 5 years (2013, 2016, 2017). Only 3 reviews from 2020 onward. Recent performance data is limited.
• GENERIC REVIEW: One review dated 2016-06-16 contains only 'unknown' as text and 5-star rating—insufficient data, excluded from analysis.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 2 mentions of pricing across 8 usable reviews. Pricing score is conservative and should not be heavily weighted.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and project completion are well-supported by multiple recent reviews, the dataset is small (8 usable reviews) and heavily weighted toward older feedback. The pricing dimension is based on only 2 mentions, limiting confidence in that assessment. The company's responsiveness appears inconsistent, and pricing transparency remains a documented concern that warrants direct inquiry before engagement.

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.

Ocean Plumbing and Air shows generally positive performance across professionalism and project completion, with all three reviewers indicating responsive service and completed work. However, pricing is a notable concern — one reviewer explicitly called the cost 'super expensive' for a $250 drain cleaning and docked two stars specifically for price, which meaningfully drags down the pricing dimension. Experience signals are positive but based on only two reviews mentioning workmanship quality. With only three total reviews, all scores should be treated with caution and the WW Score is directional at best.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• Two of the three reviews are 5-star with named technicians and specific job details — these appear genuine, but the small sample size limits reliability.
• The most recent review (September 2024) is the only one raising a pricing concern; the other two reviews are from 2023–2024 and are broadly positive, suggesting no strong recency bias issue but an insufficient data window.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied sentiment.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

Atlas Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for individual technician professionalism, with many reviewers praising specific plumbers by name for punctuality, communication, and respectful demeanor. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of rude office/management interactions, no-call no-shows, and at least two separate incidents of company vehicle drivers behaving aggressively on the road. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, misleading, or inconsistent with quoted amounts, including allegations of billing for time not worked, inflated permit costs, and price gouging of seniors and vulnerable customers. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are described as completed well and on time, but there are serious documented failures including abandoned remodel projects lasting months, work left incomplete, warranty refusals, and at least one case of a failed city inspection due to unpermitted work. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, but offset by documented cases of misdiagnosis, shoddy workmanship discovered after the fact, and pipes collapsing due to improper installation.

• LARGE REVIEW VOLUME WITH MIXED SIGNALS: The dataset spans reviews from approximately 2010 to 2025 across what appears to be multiple Atlas Plumbing entities in different geographic markets (Las Vegas/Henderson NV, Dallas TX, Northern Virginia/Alexandria VA). Scores may reflect aggregated performance across distinct business locations and ownership structures, which reduces the reliability of a single composite score.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are predominantly positive (4-5 stars), while a significant cluster of highly negative reviews spans 2021-2024. Older reviews (2010-2017) are also mixed. The recent positive trend may reflect genuine improvement or could reflect a shift in which location/entity is generating reviews.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND PERSISTENT: Pricing complaints appear across nearly every year in the dataset, from multiple reviewers, with specific dollar amounts cited. This is not isolated dissatisfaction — it represents a structural pattern of customers feeling overcharged, misquoted, or deceived on pricing. This is the single most consistent negative signal in the entire dataset.
• SERIOUS PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least three reviews describe major project abandonment or multi-month delays (shower remodel left demolished for 7+ months, two-day job stretched to over a week with incomplete cleanup, bathroom remodel with unresolved issues for nearly a year). These are severe outliers that meaningfully suppress the project completion score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: A notable number of reviews contain no text (rating only, all 5-star), particularly clustered around dates like 2023-06-10 and 2021-06-10. These blank reviews cannot be scored and may artificially inflate the star average on external platforms. They were excluded from dimension scoring but flagged here.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY CONFUSION: Some reviews reference Dallas TX operations, others Las Vegas NV, and others Northern Virginia. The owner name 'Sonny' appears in Dallas-area reviews while different staff names dominate Las Vegas reviews. Consumers should verify they are reviewing the correct Atlas Plumbing entity for their region.
• WORKER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Two separate reviews cite Atlas company vehicle drivers engaging in aggressive driving behavior including cutting off other drivers and making obscene gestures. One review describes a technician leaving a urine-filled water bottle at a job site. These incidents reflect on company culture and hiring practices.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe Atlas refusing to honor warranty work, failing to return calls after job completion, and in one case a pipe installed by Atlas failing just 3 weeks outside a 1-year warranty with the company refusing to repair it without charging over $1,000.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review dataset (232 reviews) spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should treat it with caution given the likely multi-entity nature of the reviews, the persistent and well-documented pricing complaints, and several serious project completion failures that suggest meaningful operational risk.