Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, Florida

Beckwith Plumbing has a mixed but cautiously positive profile across a small review set. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is dragged down meaningfully by one review alleging deliberate time-padding to inflate billable hours and another describing arrogant behavior at a supply counter, offsetting several reviews praising punctuality, communication, and courteous conduct. Pricing receives a below-average score because the most recent review (2024) explicitly describes feeling swindled out of $400 for a basic repair, which is a serious and specific complaint that outweighs older positive comments about fair and transparent pricing. Project completion scores moderately well — jobs described were generally finished and follow-through on callbacks was noted positively — but the small sample and one negative experience prevent a high score. Experience scores reasonably well based on specific mentions of quality workmanship and honest diagnosis, though the sample is limited and most positive reviews are 4–7 years old.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (February 2024) is the only review from the past 12 months and is strongly negative (1-star), alleging deliberate time inflation and overcharging. All other reviews are from 2017–2021, with one from 2018. The score should be interpreted with this recency imbalance in mind.
• STALENESS WARNING: Four of six reviews are more than 3 years old, and one is from 2017. Business quality and personnel may have changed significantly since those reviews were written.
• LOW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total. This is a very small sample and the WW Score carries limited statistical reliability as a result.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and specificity. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the sample size is very small (6 reviews), the majority of positive reviews are outdated (2017–2021), and the only recent review raises a specific and credible concern about pricing and billing practices.

The two positive reviews describe genuinely specific experiences — one involving a large condo pipe restoration project completed with minimal disruption, and another involving transparent pricing, on-time arrival, and quality workmanship on a home sale inspection. These provide meaningful positive signals across multiple dimensions. However, the 1-star review explicitly calls out poor communication and incompetence from a named crew member, which meaningfully drags down the professionalism score. With only 3 reviews total, confidence across all dimensions is low, and the score should be treated as a rough early indicator rather than a reliable assessment. The oldest review dates to 2019, which reduces its relevance to current performance.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• One review dates to 2019 (over 5 years old) and may not reflect current service quality.
• The 5-star condo review is highly detailed and specific, which is a positive authenticity signal. The 2019 review is also specific and credible.
• The 1-star review is brief and names a specific employee ('Kenny'), which is a credible negative signal and cannot be dismissed.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected, but the extremely small sample size makes any score unreliable.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning multiple years and should be considered highly preliminary — do not rely on it as a definitive assessment of this contractor's current 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.

Able Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and reveals a stark split: many customers praise individual technicians like Greg, Chris, and William as polite, friendly, and professional, while a meaningful cluster of reviews describes rude staff, unanswered calls, no-shows without notification, and dismissive office personnel — pulling the score down significantly. Project completion is similarly divided, with numerous reviews praising fast, same-day or next-day service and complete resolutions, but offset by complaints of unresolved recurring problems, technicians abandoning jobs, and failure to follow through on scheduled appointments. Pricing drew both praise — several reviewers called it the cheapest or most reasonable option — and sharp criticism, including one review citing excessive charges and another describing a quote double the competition's price for the same job. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, as reviews that do comment on workmanship quality are mostly positive, with specific praise for skilled diagnostics and quality craftsmanship, though one notable review describes a problem that went unresolved across multiple paid service calls.

• 9 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These reviews provide zero usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2024-06-09 share the exact same date and follow a similar generic praise pattern with minimal specifics. This cluster warrants mild fake review suspicion, though some do include named technicians and specific details.
• The review dated 2022-06-10 referencing 'Terry Vereeniging plunking' and 'copy full of liras' appears incoherent and may be a misdirected or fraudulent review. It was included for professionalism and project completion signals but treated with low individual weight.
• Reviews span from 2019 to 2025. Reviews older than 2023 (approximately 18 reviews) were given reduced weight per recency rules, as they may not reflect current business practices.
• There is a recurring pattern of complaints about a specific individual named 'Nick' failing to call back or show up, appearing in at least two separate reviews across different years, suggesting a possible systemic responsiveness issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to the volume of reviews analyzed and strong mention counts across all four dimensions, but the score itself reflects genuine inconsistency in service quality rather than a stable performance level — prospective customers should weigh both the positive and negative reviews carefully.

David Gray demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians frequently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and thorough explanations. However, the company is severely hampered by widespread pricing complaints—the single most damaging factor across reviews. Customers consistently report excessive charges, hidden fees, price gouging tactics, and lack of transparency on costs before service. Project completion is solid but marred by occasional follow-up failures and unresolved issues. The stark contrast between positive service quality and negative pricing practices creates a polarized reputation that significantly depresses the overall WW Score.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical 5-star reviews with generic praise ('Excellent service. Best tech ever.', 'He did sn excellent job.', 'He explained everything that he checked...') appear on the same dates (June 1-2, May 30-31, May 23, Feb 6, etc.), suggesting potential review manipulation or template responses. These reviews lack specific details and appear suspiciously clustered.
• SEVERE PRICING CONTROVERSY: 89 mentions of pricing issues dominate the dataset. Recurring complaints include: $25k AC quotes vs. $10k competitors, $1100+ for simple faucet installs (market rate ~$200-400), $500+ toilet replacements, $400+ diagnostic fees, $69 service fees that don't apply to final bill, and opaque 'job-based' pricing with no hourly transparency. This is the primary driver of negative sentiment.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Wide variance in technician performance. Named technicians (Aaron Fitz, Hamid, Tanner, Bryan, Riley) receive consistent 5-star praise, while others are criticized for misdiagnosis, poor workmanship, and unprofessional behavior. One technician (Hamid) appears in both highly positive and highly negative reviews.
• FOLLOW-UP AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews report no-shows, missed appointments, lack of response to callbacks, and incomplete repairs requiring return visits at additional cost. One customer reported a 6-month installation with ongoing issues.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: Several reviews document faulty installations (incorrect wiring, improper assembly, system not cooling/heating correctly after install), requiring additional service calls and creating customer frustration.
• AGGRESSIVE COLLECTION PRACTICES: At least two reviews mention threats of collections action for disputed charges, suggesting aggressive debt collection tactics.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), with pricing complaints appearing consistently throughout. Older reviews (2017-2020) show fewer pricing complaints, suggesting the company's pricing model has become more aggressive in recent years.

This WW Score of 68.2 is highly reliable due to large sample size (176 reviews) and consistent patterns across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical bifurcation: technician professionalism and expertise are genuinely strong (82.5), but pricing practices are severely problematic (38.0), creating a company that delivers quality work at prices customers perceive as exploitative. The fake review pattern suggests some positive ratings may be inflated, which would lower the true professionalism score slightly. Customers should expect excellent technical service but should budget significantly higher than market rates and negotiate aggressively before authorizing work.

This review set aggregates feedback across what appears to be multiple contractors and companies all operating under or associated with the 'ASAP Plumbing' name, which significantly complicates scoring. Positive reviews — many centered on individual plumbers named Bruce, Jerry, and Anthony — consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, driving scores upward across all dimensions. However, a substantial cluster of serious negative reviews describes abandoned work, dangerous code violations, dishonest upselling, rude behavior, and jobs left incomplete or improperly executed, pulling scores down considerably. The water heater installation failure described in two separate reviews (likely the same incident) is a particularly damaging data point for both project completion and experience. Overall, the score reflects a deeply mixed contractor profile where individual technician quality varies enormously and company-level accountability is a recurring concern.

• MULTIPLE ENTITIES WARNING: Reviews appear to reference several distinct contractors and possibly multiple separate businesses all using the 'ASAP Plumbing' name across different geographic regions (California, Kansas, Virginia, etc.). Scores should not be interpreted as reflecting a single unified business.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contained no text content (only a rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews. Their uniformly positive ratings with zero detail raise concerns about authenticity.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: Several reviews consist of only a period ('.'), 'unknown', or a single generic sentence with no specifics. These add no usable data and inflate the raw star average artificially.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2002 to 2024. A significant number of reviews predate 2020 and were given reduced weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) include a dangerous water heater installation failure and an abandoned job with no follow-up, which are weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2002) describes a boiler flue installation that was not up to code, caused carbon monoxide leakage, triggered a fire department response, and was subsequently repaired improperly. Another (2024) describes an oversized water heater installed without a drip pan in a confined space, leading to unit failure within a month. These are significant safety and competence red flags.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were started but never completed, with the company becoming unreachable afterward. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods and locations.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least two reviews describe charges of approximately $1,800 for water heater installations that resulted in immediate failure, followed by demands for an additional $580 without proper diagnosis. One review describes a $5,200 quote that a second plumber resolved for $160.
• HIDDEN FEES: One reviewer noted an undisclosed 3.5% credit card surcharge revealed only after work was completed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a guide to any single contractor is LOW because the reviews almost certainly reflect multiple distinct businesses and individual plumbers operating under similar or identical trade names across different regions — consumers should verify which specific entity and technician they are hiring before relying on this score.