Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, Florida

Justin the Plumber earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — dozens of reviews explicitly cite courteous, prompt, and communicative technicians by name. Experience and workmanship are well-supported, with multiple reviewers describing complex jobs (slab leaks, full septic repipes, kitchen island plumbing relocation, multi-bathroom remodels) handled competently and correctly. Project completion is generally solid, though one notable 2-star review from October 2024 describes a job that was abandoned mid-visit after 1.5 hours with no follow-up, which meaningfully tempers that dimension's score. Pricing receives mostly positive feedback — several reviewers call it reasonable or the best they found — but one reviewer flagged $160 for a shutoff valve as high, and the abandoned-job review involved a $350 charge for incomplete work, preventing a higher score here. Overall, the body of evidence is large and recent enough to support a reliable assessment.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these provide no usable qualitative data.
• One review (2-star, Oct 2024) describes a technician who could not complete the job, charged $350 for 1.5 hours of unsuccessful work, and never followed up — this is a meaningful negative signal for both project completion and pricing and was weighted accordingly.
• Several reviews appear to reference 'Peyton Plumbing' rather than 'Justin the Plumber,' suggesting this review set may be aggregated from multiple business profiles or a business that changed names. This introduces some uncertainty about whether all reviews reflect the same current operation.
• The review corpus contains a high proportion of 5-star ratings (55 of 58 reviews), which warrants mild caution. However, most reviews include specific technician names, job descriptions, and situational details, reducing the likelihood of systematic fake review inflation.
• Some older reviews (2022 and earlier) reference 'Scott' and 'Peyton Plumbing' exclusively — these may reflect a prior business identity and were included but given slightly reduced recency weight.
• One 5-star review (June 2023) references a missed appointment that was later corrected — this is a minor professionalism flag that was factored into scoring.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review set (58 total, 52 with usable data) spanning 2022–2025, with strong recency and high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a reasonably reliable indicator of current service quality — though the mixed business identity (Justin the Plumber vs. Peyton Plumbing) and one unresolved abandonment complaint introduce moderate uncertainty that prevents a top-tier confidence rating.

Pine Lakes Plumbing (Rob) receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most frequently cited strengths across all 10 reviews. Reviewers repeatedly highlight his punctuality, respectful demeanor, clean work habits, and thorough follow-through on jobs ranging from toilet installs to complex valve replacements. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with one reviewer noting the cost was cheaper than competitors and another praising fair and honest pricing, though the limited mentions keep confidence at MODERATE for that dimension. One review (4-star, 2016) introduced a mild concern about a customer feeling uncomfortable with the technician, though the reviewer themselves discounted it as potentially age-related sensitivity and confirmed the work was completed correctly. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from 2023 and one from 2022, which moderately reduces recency confidence.

• RECENCY WARNING: 8 of 10 reviews are older than 12 months (ranging from 2016 to 2020). Only 2 reviews fall within the past 24 months (2022, 2023). The score may not reflect current service quality.
• MILD CONCERN: One reviewer (2016, 4-star) noted that an elderly customer did not feel comfortable with the technician who performed the work. The reviewer attributed this to the customer's age but flagged it for transparency. No other reviews echo this concern.
• REVIEW VOLUME: With only 10 total reviews, the dataset is small. Scores are directionally reliable but should be interpreted with caution until more reviews are available.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, writing style, and specificity. Multiple reviews reference distinct job types and personal anecdotes, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small review pool of 10 and the significant recency gap, with most reviews predating 2021; the score reflects a consistently positive historical track record but should be validated against more recent customer feedback before making a hiring decision.

Lance Maxwell Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and solid project completion rates. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technician courtesy across 68 mentions, with staff frequently praised for responsiveness and friendly demeanor. Technical competence is well-documented across 41 mentions, with technicians showing strong diagnostic and problem-solving skills. Project completion is reliable across 52 mentions, though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. Pricing receives a moderate score of 78.0 based on 22 mentions; while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, a notable subset reports surprise charges, hidden fees, and estimates that significantly exceed quoted amounts, creating trust concerns.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2017-2019 era and recent) report significant discrepancies between phone estimates and final bills, undisclosed fees (camera charges, travel fees, equipment surcharges), and warranty limitations (30-day parts warranty). This pattern suggests potential systemic issues with quote transparency.
• PROJECT QUALITY VARIANCE: Several reviews document incomplete or substandard work (leaking toilet seals, misaligned shower valves, missing flange covers, inadequate equipment on service calls) requiring callbacks or customer dissatisfaction. Quality appears inconsistent across technicians.
• SERVICE RELIABILITY GAPS: Three reviews from 2019 document significant scheduling failures—missed appointments, canceled tickets without notification, and poor follow-up communication—indicating operational inconsistencies despite overall positive trend.
• BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE: One 2024 review alleges non-compliance with Florida Building Code (Chapter 5, Section 504.7.2) regarding water heater installation, claiming unauthorized property damage. This is a serious allegation that warrants verification.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Approximately 65% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), showing strong recent performance. However, 2017-2019 reviews reveal more service failures and pricing disputes, suggesting possible operational improvements over time or review platform changes.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 5 reviews contain no text or only ratings, reducing data quality slightly but not materially affecting scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: One customer review (Limo Mike) appears twice with identical text (2019-06-11 and 2019-02-01), suggesting possible data duplication rather than fake review pattern.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (41-68 reviews per category) and predominantly recent data (past 12 months). However, the score masks meaningful variance: professionalism and project completion are genuinely strong, but pricing transparency and service consistency issues are material concerns that should weigh heavily in hiring decisions. Customers should request detailed written estimates with all fees disclosed upfront and verify warranty terms before engaging this company.

Griffin Service demonstrates strong professionalism across 42 reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented across 22 reviews, with technicians like Kyle and Joe frequently highlighted for skill and problem-solving. Project completion is generally solid (18 mentions, 81 score), though one significant 2021 review details serious follow-through failures, no-shows, and billing disputes that substantially lower this dimension. Pricing feedback is mixed (8 mentions, 72 score)—while many reviews praise fair pricing, several older reviews cite high costs and one 2022 review mentions learning to prepay for discounts. The company shows strong recent performance (2024, 2023 reviews positive) but has documented service failures in 2021-2022.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTERING: 24 reviews dated 2021-08-03 with identical timestamps and highly similar 5-star praise patterns suggest potential batch posting or review manipulation. These reviews use generic superlatives ('fantastic,' 'excellent,' 'professional') with minimal specific detail.
• SEVERE SERVICE FAILURE: 2021-12-10 review (1-star) documents critical failures including no-shows, billing disputes, unprofessional staff conduct ('A__ Holes' comment overheard), missing invoices, and customer service breakdown. This contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative and suggests inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2022, 2023) mention high pricing and hidden fees ($13,500 quote, $199 undisclosed fee, billing disputes), conflicting with 'fair price' claims in other reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews (40+) are from 2018 and clustered 2021-08-03. Only 3 reviews from 2024-2023. Recent data is limited and may not reflect current operations.
• INCOMPLETE CLEANUP: 2023-02-16 review notes technician did not fully clean work area, suggesting inconsistent attention to detail despite professionalism claims.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by numerous reviews, the suspicious clustering of 24 identical-timestamp reviews, combined with one catastrophic 2021 service failure and limited recent data (only 3 reviews from past 12 months), significantly undermines confidence in the overall reliability of this assessment. The company appears to have experienced serious operational issues in 2021-2022 that may or may not have been resolved.

Greg Faulkner Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in project completion (85) and technical expertise (88). Professionalism scores 78 due to mixed signals: most reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, but two detailed negative reviews cite scheduling failures, lack of appointment notes, and billing discrepancies that significantly impact this dimension. Pricing is consistently praised as fair and honest (82), with transparent upfront quotes and no price gouging mentioned across multiple reviews. The company excels at problem-solving and workmanship quality. However, the two 1-star reviews from 2017 and 2022 reveal operational inconsistencies that prevent a higher overall score.

• Two significant negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2017 and 2022) create a bimodal distribution: 10 five-star reviews vs. 2 one-star reviews with detailed complaints. The 2017 review documents specific failures: missed appointment time, lack of job notes, and billing for 2 hours when only 1 hour was quoted/worked. The 2022 review cites unprofessional behavior (showing up early without notice, no time window given, unfriendly demeanor).
• Recency concern: 7 of 12 reviews are older than 2 years (2017-2021). Only 3 reviews from 2022-2024. The most recent negative review is from January 2022, suggesting possible but unconfirmed improvement.
• Potential pattern in negative reviews: both cite lack of communication/scheduling professionalism, suggesting this may be a systemic weakness despite strong technical performance.
• Most positive reviews use similar language patterns (e.g., 'highly recommend,' 'great work,' 'honest,' 'reliable') but each contains specific, unique details about actual work performed, so authenticity appears reasonable.

This score should be trusted with caution: while the HIGH confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the stark contrast between 10 five-star and 2 one-star reviews indicates operational inconsistency. The company excels technically but has documented professionalism and scheduling issues. Prospective customers should expect quality work but should confirm appointment details in writing and clarify billing terms upfront.

Rooter Express of Jax earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most consistently praised attributes across a large volume of reviews. Julian is repeatedly described as punctual, courteous, responsive, and thorough — often arriving within the hour and triple-checking his work before leaving. Project completion scores well due to numerous accounts of jobs being seen through to resolution, including a notable callback instance where he returned at no charge to fix a recurring issue. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or low prices, multiple negative reviews cite overcharging for short jobs (e.g., $325 for a 30-minute snake, $265 for a quick drain clear), and at least three reviewers complained about never receiving a receipt or invoice after paying cash. Experience scores well based on specific accounts of Julian solving problems that other plumbers could not, diagnosing root causes, and working on complex or older plumbing systems.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A large number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same date with identical text and ratings. Approximately 60-70 reviews appear to be duplicates of other reviews in the dataset. This significantly inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a platform syncing issue (e.g., Angi + Thumbtack pulling the same reviews) or potential manipulation. Unique review count is estimated at approximately 80-90.
• RECEIPT/INVOICE COMPLAINTS: At least 4 distinct reviews (across unique entries) explicitly mention not receiving a receipt or invoice after paying cash or Zelle. This is a recurring business practice concern and a transparency red flag.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer documented being charged escalating prices for the same type of work across three visits, and confirmed with three other plumbers that the final charge of $325 was significantly above market rate for a quick snake job.
• NO-LICENSE CONCERN: One reviewer noted they did not see a license number and that the contractor started working before being officially hired.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 16 reviews have no date attached. These cannot be assessed for recency and were scored conservatively.
• GENERIC LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: A notable number of reviews consist of only 1-5 words (e.g., 'Great job!', 'Terrific.', 'Excellent!!', 'Good', 'Julian'). While not necessarily fake, these provide no scorable data and inflate review counts without adding analytical value.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2022-2024, with the most recent dated September 2024. The review base is reasonably current.

The WW Score of 82.1 carries HIGH confidence in directional accuracy given the large volume of reviews, but should be interpreted with caution due to widespread duplicate entries that inflate apparent review counts, a recurring pattern of receipt/invoice complaints suggesting inconsistent business practices, and mixed pricing feedback that pulls the overall score down from what would otherwise be a higher mark.