Find Nearby Plumbers In Hollywood, Florida

Pompa Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions based on 11 reviews spanning 2021 to 2024. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with nearly every reviewer praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication. Project completion is also very well supported, with multiple reviewers noting same-day service, jobs finished quickly and completely, and technicians arriving prepared with the right parts. Experience is highlighted in several reviews, particularly around tankless water heater expertise and the ability to solve problems that other plumbers could not. Pricing is mentioned positively in four reviews, with customers noting fair quotes, transparency, and prices significantly below competitors, lending moderate confidence to that dimension.

• All 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild scrutiny. However, most reviews include specific technician names, job details, and situational context, which reduces the likelihood of fabricated reviews.
• Three reviews are older than 12 months (2021–2022) and two are from 2022. While these are consistent in tone with recent reviews, slightly more weight has been given to the six reviews from 2023–2024 per recency rules.
• No negative experiences or constructive criticism appear in any review. While this may reflect genuine quality, it limits the ability to identify any weaknesses in service.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to a sufficient review count, specific and detailed testimonials, consistent mention of key dimensions, and a reasonable spread of dates across multiple years.

A1 Underground & Plumbing Services earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews praising punctual crews, thorough cleanup, and high-quality pipe replacement work. Project completion is a particular strength, with numerous reviewers independently noting that jobs were finished on time, within scope, and with minimal disruption to property. Professionalism scores are tempered by three negative reviews citing rude office staff, property damage that was allegedly concealed, and a vehicle incident involving dismissive customer service — these are credible, specific complaints that cannot be ignored. Pricing is rated positively by several reviewers who noted fair quotes, transparent adjustments, and competitive value, though it is mentioned less frequently than other dimensions. Experience scores are high based on consistent praise for technical skill, specialized tunneling equipment, and quality of finished work across many independent accounts.

• Two reviews (2021-07-31 and 2021-08-01) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, suggesting a duplicate submission by the same reviewer or a copy-paste error. These were counted as one unique mention to avoid inflating scores.
• Three blank reviews with only star ratings (5.0, 5.0, 3.0) were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable textual data.
• One 1-star review (2013-06-17) alleges property damage, concealment of that damage, unpunctuality, and rude behavior post-contract. This is over 10 years old but is specific and credible — it was included with reduced recency weight.
• One 1-star review (2019-08-12) involves a vehicle/road incident with a company truck and describes a rude receptionist. This is not a plumbing service review but does reflect on company conduct and staff attitude — factored into professionalism at reduced weight.
• One 1-star review (2025-03-11) specifically calls out rude staff, particularly the receptionist. This is recent and consistent with the 2019 complaint, suggesting a possible ongoing issue with front-office conduct.
• The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months. Only 3 reviews fall within the past 12 months (April 2025, March 2025, February 2025), two of which are 5-star and one is 1-star. Recency weighting slightly moderates the otherwise high professionalism score.
• No fake review patterns detected. Positive reviews are highly specific, reference named staff members, describe unique job details, and vary meaningfully in language and scope.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews with usable data spanning 2013 to 2025, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with awareness that recurring complaints about rude office staff across multiple years represent a consistent and credible weakness not fully offset by the volume of positive field-work reviews.

Davis/J&J Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent on-time arrivals, courteous communication, and responsive service across 16 mentions. Project completion is solid at 80, supported by 14 mentions showing jobs finished as promised, though two notable failures (2012 emergency response, 2011 callback issue) and one quality defect (2006 leaking faucet) temper the score. Technical experience is strong at 87 across 12 mentions, with skilled diagnostics and problem-solving evident. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 73 across 6 mentions—customers acknowledge fair value but note costs are on the higher end of market rates. The company's age (reviews span 2006–2016) and volume of positive feedback provide confidence, though most reviews predate 2015.

• Two 'unknown' reviews with 5-star ratings (2016-05-12, 2016-01-13) lack substantive content and cannot be scored; treated as unusable data.
• One 'unknown' review with 2-star rating (2015-02-04) also lacks content and is unusable.
• Review from 2012-06-06 describes a significant service failure (missed callback, delayed response to emergency) that directly contradicts professionalism claims; this negative outlier is appropriately weighted.
• Review from 2011-06-03 indicates a callback issue and unresolved follow-up, suggesting occasional follow-through gaps.
• Review from 2006-08-24 reports shoddy installation and recurring leak, indicating quality control lapses in earlier period.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (majority from 2006–2014); only 3 reviews from 2015–2016, limiting recency assessment.
• Multiple reviews use all-caps formatting (2006 reviews), which may indicate copy-paste or template responses, though content is substantive enough to score.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (6–16 mentions each) and consistent patterns across a large review set; however, the age of most reviews (pre-2015) and documented service failures in 2012 and 2011 suggest the company's current performance may differ from historical scores.

Unclog Services 24/7 demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness across 7 reviews. Technical expertise is evident with thorough workmanship and problem-solving ability mentioned in 5 reviews. Project completion shows solid performance (6 mentions) though one significant failure—a missed callback and abandoned service—tempers the score. Pricing receives mixed feedback (5 mentions): generally reasonable and fair, but one reviewer noted rates on the high side. The company's primary weakness is inconsistent follow-through on commitments.

• Review dated 2024-06-21 appears artificially padded with meta-commentary ('Oops! Ai says to make it longer as if the web needs additional blah!'), suggesting possible fake or manipulated review. This reduces confidence slightly in that data point.
• One critical negative review (2024-02-24, rating 2.0) describes missed appointment, no callback, and communication failure—a serious project completion issue that significantly impacts overall score despite predominantly positive reviews.
• All reviews are from 2024 (past 12 months), so recency is not a concern.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable and based on 9 reviews with substantive data across all four dimensions. However, the presence of one serious service failure and one suspicious review warrant caution; the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and expertise offset by meaningful concerns about follow-through and consistency.

Generator Supercenter demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians (particularly Sergio/Serge), with consistently positive feedback on workmanship and customer service responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by systemic communication failures, project delays, and permitting issues that have frustrated multiple customers. Pricing is competitive but concerns exist around transparency and unexpected costs. Project completion suffers from inconsistent follow-through, missed appointments, and poor coordination between departments, despite ultimately delivering functional installations.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from 2024-06-09 (at least 15 reviews) contain nearly identical phrasing praising 'Sergio/Serge' with suspiciously generic language and no specific details. This cluster suggests coordinated positive reviews and reduces confidence in the professionalism score.
• SYSTEMIC COMMUNICATION ISSUES: At least 6 reviews explicitly cite poor communication, missed callbacks, last-minute scheduling, and lack of transparency about project status and payment timelines. This is a recurring structural problem, not isolated incidents.
• PERMITTING AND PROJECT DELAYS: Multiple reviews (2023, 2020, 2014) report significant delays ranging from 65+ days beyond estimate to projects stalled for months due to permitting issues. One customer waited 9 months with no permit progress.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND CALLBACKS: Several reviews mention abandoned work, incomplete installations (monitoring devices, carbon monoxide detectors not installed), and customers being charged before work completion.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are heavily weighted toward 5-star ratings with minimal detail, while detailed negative reviews are older (2020-2023). Recent positive reviews lack specificity compared to older, more detailed reviews.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between individual technician performance (Sergio consistently praised) and company-level operations (scheduling, communication, permitting failures).
• PAYMENT CONFUSION: Multiple customers report confusion about payment schedules, unexpected invoices, and unclear billing between Costco and the company.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and individual technician performance, it is significantly undermined by a cluster of suspicious 5-star reviews from June 2024 that appear coordinated, and by consistent, detailed complaints about systemic operational failures (communication, scheduling, permitting, project management) that are not adequately reflected in the overall score due to the high volume of generic positive reviews. The company excels at technical execution but fails at project management and customer communication.

A to Z Statewide Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians — particularly named individuals like Joey, Ralph, Omar, Eben, and Rafael — who communicate clearly and treat customers respectfully. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished as promised, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe no-shows, missed appointments, abandoned work, or jobs requiring multiple return visits to resolve correctly. The pricing dimension is the most significant drag on the overall score: a substantial number of reviewers across many years explicitly describe prices as excessive, opaque, or manipulative — including complaints about the $89 diagnostic fee, flat-rate pricing that can equate to over $1,000 per hour, and estimates that escalated significantly mid-job. While the company clearly delivers quality work in most cases, the recurring and consistent pricing complaints across a large review base prevent a higher overall score.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: Pricing complaints appear in a statistically significant portion of reviews spanning 2013–2025. Multiple reviewers explicitly describe being charged $400–$1,000+ for short jobs, receiving estimates that escalated mid-project, and feeling pressured to decide immediately or forfeit the $89 diagnostic fee. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe technicians failing to appear at scheduled times with no proactive communication, including one case where the company denied having any record of the appointment. One reviewer lost time off work due to a no-show.
• ABANDONED / INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews describe work that was not completed satisfactorily on the first visit, required multiple return trips, or was left in a worse state than before (e.g., water heater failing after one week due to improper wiring, crooked fixture installation, three visits for a simple sink leak with no resolution).
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2021-04-12 are word-for-word identical (Eben Osbrach review). This appears to be an accidental duplicate submission rather than a coordinated fake review campaign, but it has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: The majority of positive reviews are specific, name individual technicians, and describe distinct situations, which reduces fake review risk. However, a small cluster of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service. Very professional!', 'Excellent service', blank-text 5-star reviews) slightly elevates concern. Three reviews had no text at all.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly positive with fewer pricing complaints, which may indicate improvement, but the long historical record of pricing issues warrants continued caution.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One 2019 review alleges the owner told the customer to 'f myself' when requesting a phone estimate. This is an isolated but serious professionalism flag at the leadership level.
• VEHICLE INCIDENT: One 2024 review reports a company vehicle (truck #17, plate IMMG66) running a stop sign and nearly causing a collision in Fort Lauderdale. This is a safety and liability flag unrelated to plumbing quality but relevant to company culture.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence; the score of 74.2 reliably reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional technicians offset by a well-documented and persistent pattern of pricing complaints, occasional scheduling failures, and rare but serious service breakdowns.