Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, Florida

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

Premier Plumbing draws a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, punctuality, and technical skill, which drives reasonably strong scores in professionalism and experience. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — document serious concerns including missed appointments with no communication, incorrect diagnoses charged at full price, abandoned work, and billing disputes, which significantly tempers all dimension scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different years describe charges they considered excessive, hidden fees, bait-and-switch quoting, and charges for work not performed, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left incomplete, recurring problems not resolved, and callbacks that were never honored. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in individual technician quality but persistent systemic issues in billing transparency, communication, and follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Three reviews dated 2016-05-03 and 2016-05-05 are nearly word-for-word identical regarding a boiler/Rinnai/Trane installation. These appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under similar 'Premier Plumbing' names across different geographic markets (Texas, California, South Carolina, Iowa, etc.). This significantly reduces the reliability of the aggregate score as it may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range (2006–2025), indicating that communication failures, no-shows, and billing disputes are not isolated incidents but recurring patterns over many years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A subset of 5-star reviews from 2021–2023 use generic praise with no specifics ('Great company,' 'Always good service,' 'Excellent service'). These add minimal evidentiary weight and were not used to inflate dimension scores.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews explicitly describe technicians removing fixtures or cutting into walls and then not returning to complete the job, which is a serious project completion red flag.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for work not performed, incorrect diagnoses billed as repairs, and prices significantly higher than competing quotes for identical work.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a reflection of any single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Premier Plumbing' name across different states, and that recurring negative patterns in billing, communication, and project completion are documented consistently across many years.

Mr. Rooter Jacksonville receives strong praise for professionalism and responsiveness across a large number of recent reviews, with many customers highlighting punctual arrivals, courteous technicians, and clear communication. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe charges as excessive, inconsistent, or deceptive, including wildly varying quotes, unexpected fees, and estimates far above competitors. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished efficiently, but there are notable failures including a multi-day overrun with property damage, a job that required multiple return visits due to incomplete work, and at least one instance where the problem was not resolved after payment. Experience scores moderately well, with many technicians praised for diagnosing and solving problems skillfully, but offset by several reviews describing incompetent diagnoses, wrong advice, and workmanship errors that worsened the original problem.

• 25 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank, 'unknown', or single punctuation marks) — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews. This inflates the apparent review count and average star rating.
• Several undated reviews exist and cannot be assessed for recency. These were included in scoring but treated with reduced weight.
• A cluster of reviews praising 'Eric' with nearly identical phrasing and structure (e.g., 'very kind and patient,' 'allowed us to watch the process,' 'will definitely be using Mr. Rooter for all our plumbing needs') appears across multiple undated reviews — two reviews are nearly word-for-word identical. This pattern is consistent with possible fake or coached reviews and confidence in the experience and professionalism scores has been conservatively adjusted.
• The majority of detailed negative reviews are older (2014–2019), while recent reviews (2024–2025) skew heavily positive. This recency gap may reflect genuine improvement or selective review solicitation.
• Pricing dimension received the lowest score (48) due to consistent, specific complaints about overcharging, inconsistent quotes, hidden fees, and estimates far exceeding competitor pricing — this is a material risk flag for prospective customers.
• One review (2016) describes a severe service failure where technicians made the original problem worse, management was dismissive, and the faucet was returned still broken — this is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• One review (2014) describes a re-pipe job that took five days instead of two, caused property damage (scratched appliances, broken tile, damaged exhaust fan, ceiling stains), and had no drop cloths used — a serious workmanship and completion failure.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (120 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score statistical weight, but reliability is moderately reduced by a significant volume of blank/no-text reviews, suspected duplicate or coached reviews for technician Eric, a wide date range spanning nearly 20 years, and a clear pattern of serious pricing complaints that prospective customers should treat as a meaningful risk signal.

Rolland Reash Plumbing receives strong praise for professionalism, responsiveness, and courteous technicians across a large volume of recent reviews, which anchors the professionalism score in the mid-70s rather than higher due to a meaningful minority of complaints about condescending tone, poor communication, and technicians causing damage without disclosure. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with a recurring pattern of complaints about unexpectedly high bills, charges for mistakes, unclear invoicing, and billing customers while technicians sat idle — pulling the price score well below average despite some reviewers praising fair value. Project completion is moderately strong, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but several notable failures — including a three-visit sewer clog that was never properly resolved, a misdiagnosed slab leak, and a tub installation requiring multiple callbacks — prevent a higher score. Experience scores similarly in the mid-70s: many reviewers highlight knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but incidents of misdiagnosis, incorrect equipment brought to jobs, and workmanship damage temper confidence in consistent technical quality.

• 8 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating), including several 5-star entries dated 2025. These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• 3 reviews are labeled 'unknown' with no substantive content and were excluded from scoring.
• A cluster of 10+ reviews dated 2025-06-02 through 2025-06-09 are all 5-star with varying levels of detail. While most contain specific names or scenarios, the density of same-week 5-star reviews warrants mild caution. No definitive fake review pattern confirmed, but confidence is noted.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed negative reviews span 2006–2021, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025. This temporal split may reflect genuine improvement over time, but older negative reviews were still weighted as they describe systemic issues (pricing opacity, misdiagnosis, billing disputes) that also appear in more recent reviews.
• Pricing complaints appear across multiple years (2006, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2023, 2025), suggesting a persistent structural issue rather than isolated incidents. This pattern meaningfully suppresses the pricing score.
• One review (2025-01-10, 2-star) describes a technician breaking a pipe, damaging a bathtub finish, and not disclosing either issue — a workmanship and transparency concern that affects both experience and professionalism scores.
• One review (2020-05-08, 1-star) describes a misdiagnosed slab leak leading to an unnecessary re-pipe recommendation, raising concerns about upselling or diagnostic competence.
• One review (2019-03-18, 1-star) describes three failed service visits for a sewer clog with technicians arriving without proper equipment each time — a significant project completion failure.

This WW Score is based on 80 reviews spanning approximately 13 years with a high volume of recent data, giving it HIGH overall confidence, though the persistent pricing complaints and a non-trivial rate of negative workmanship and completion experiences mean the score of 72.1 should be treated as a realistic mid-tier assessment rather than a strong endorsement.

CGC Water Services receives strong and consistent praise for the professionalism, courtesy, and knowledge of individual technicians — names like Ronnie, Elvin, Dale, Abel, Kyle, and William appear repeatedly with positive feedback. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out hidden fees, excessive labor charges, high service call costs, and aggressive upselling tactics that significantly drag down the pricing dimension. Project completion is generally positive for installations, but there are notable failures including a faucet installed incorrectly that required a costly callback, a no-show appointment, and unreturned calls that left customers without service. Experience scores moderately well based on technical knowledge and quality of installations, but is tempered by complaints about salespeople misrepresenting system capabilities and technicians pushing unnecessary replacements.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews from April 2025 and earlier 2025 dates share a very similar structure (technician name + brief praise), which may reflect a coached or incentivized review pattern. Confidence is maintained due to specificity of technician names, but this pattern is noted.
• Pricing complaints span multiple years (2018, 2022, 2024, 2025), suggesting a systemic and persistent issue rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews mention unreturned calls and difficulty reaching the company, indicating a responsiveness problem that is not fully captured in star ratings alone.
• Several older reviews (2016–2020) reference the company under a prior name (Clearwater Systems / CGC Kinetico), and one reviewer explicitly notes the company has declined in quality since the name change. Recency weighting applied — older reviews given reduced influence.
• One reviewer reported a sexist comment allegedly made by a company representative, which is a serious conduct flag even if unverified.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the stark contrast between positive technician-level experiences and serious systemic concerns around pricing transparency, upselling, and responsiveness.

Michael Adams Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism across the majority of reviews, with customers consistently praising punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and communication. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple reviewers explicitly called out charges as extremely high or unreasonable, including a $195 screw-tightening fee, an $8,500 quote against a $2,000 norm, and a $425 charge for a simple shower knob replacement, which meaningfully drags the pricing score down. Project completion is generally solid for smaller jobs, but one notable negative review describes a major drain line project that ran twice over the quoted timeline, left the property in worse condition than promised, and involved rude subcontractors — a serious flag for larger-scale work. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising Mike's technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the failed large project introduces doubt about consistency on complex jobs.

• PRICING CONCERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly flag pricing as high or unreasonable. This is a statistically significant pattern across the review set and should be weighted seriously by prospective customers.
• LARGE PROJECT RISK: One detailed negative review (Aug 2021) describes a major drain line replacement that ran 2x over schedule, involved unprofessional subcontractors, and left property damage unresolved. This contrasts sharply with positive reviews, which mostly cover smaller jobs.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from late 2022. No reviews from 2023 or 2024 are present. The score reflects a contractor profile that may be up to 2+ years out of date.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC PRAISE: A small number of reviews (e.g., Sep 2022 5-star) use highly generic, non-specific language with no job details, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual reviews. However, the majority of positive reviews include specific job descriptions, so no broad fake review flag is warranted.
• SUBCONTRACTOR QUALITY: The Aug 2021 negative review specifically calls out hired workers — not Mike himself — as rude and unprofessional. Customers should inquire whether Mike will personally perform the work on larger projects.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable in direction, but prospective customers should note that pricing complaints are frequent and consistent, and that performance on large or complex projects appears less predictable than on routine repairs.