Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami Gardens, Florida

Drain Masters demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual service, friendly technicians, and clear communication across 187 mentions. Project completion is solid at 81.0, with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, though some no-show incidents and warranty disputes appear in negative reviews. Experience scores well at 80.5, reflecting skilled technicians and effective problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0 across 89 mentions, with recurring complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, upselling, and quotes that don't match final bills. This pricing concern substantially impacts the overall WW Score despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees, and significant discrepancies between quoted and final prices. Examples include $250 quoted vs $573 charged, $2200 for water heater installation, and $400+ diagnostic fees. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Approximately 35 one-star and two-star reviews detail serious issues including flood damage from improper installation, unlicensed technicians, no-shows to scheduled appointments (multiple instances), and refusal to honor warranties. Several reviews mention BBB complaints and legal threats.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple locations (Santa Barbara, San Jose, Anchorage, Daytona, Modesto, Sacramento, St. Louis, etc.), suggesting either multiple franchises or locations under the same name. Some reviews explicitly warn about confusion between different Drain Masters companies.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews report warranty claims denied or disputed, with customers charged for follow-up visits on the same issue within warranty period.
• LICENSING CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews mention unlicensed or out-of-state licensed technicians performing work, raising legal and safety questions.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 reviews document scheduled appointments with no-shows and no communication, contradicting the strong professionalism scores.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW MARKERS: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the extremely high concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 70% of total) combined with the severity and specificity of negative reviews suggests possible review manipulation or multiple business locations with vastly different quality standards.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and project completion scores are well-supported by 150+ mentions each, the pricing dimension reveals a systemic pattern of customer dissatisfaction that significantly undermines trust. The presence of serious negative reviews documenting flood damage, licensing violations, and no-shows, combined with geographic inconsistency and warranty disputes, suggests this company may have quality control or management issues that vary by location. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed, itemized written quotes and clarifying all fees upfront before engaging this company.

Epic Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about high service charges, minimum fees, and perceived overcharging that substantially undermine overall satisfaction. While most recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal a persistent pattern of pricing concerns that have not been adequately addressed. The company excels at responsiveness and workmanship quality but struggles with transparent, fair pricing practices.

• PRICING PATTERN: 42 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent complaint across multiple years. Complaints include: $275-$500 diagnostic fees, $140-$348 labor charges for 15-30 minutes of work, material markups of 10-15x cost, and minimum service charges of $195-$275. This is the single largest driver of negative reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 65% of reviews are from the past 12 months (May 2024-June 2025), and these are predominantly 5-star with minimal pricing complaints. Older reviews (2016-2023) contain more detailed pricing grievances. This suggests either improved practices or selection bias in recent review submission.
• TRAFFIC/CONDUCT INCIDENTS: 4 reviews mention unsafe or rude driving behavior by Epic Plumbing vehicles (cutting off traffic, aggressive lane changes, littering). While not directly related to plumbing service, these reflect on company culture and driver training.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews cite scheduling miscommunication, missed appointments, failure to relay information between office and technicians, and unresponsiveness to follow-up calls.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews describe poor initial workmanship requiring callbacks (toilet installations, water heater installations, leak detection). Some technicians received praise while others were criticized for the same types of jobs.
• WARRANTY/POST-WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews describe refusal to honor warranty claims or assist with installation defects once warranty expired, with defensive responses from management (particularly 'Gary' in customer service).
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain minimal detail, generic praise ('Great service!', 'Outstanding!'), or are blank text with 5-star ratings. However, the majority of reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and concrete examples, reducing overall fake review risk.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable for assessing overall service quality but should be interpreted with caution regarding pricing: the company delivers competent, professional plumbing work with strong project completion rates, but customers should expect significantly higher costs than market average and should obtain detailed written quotes before committing. The HIGH confidence rating reflects substantial review volume (201 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but the pricing dimension's MODERATE confidence (42 mentions) and the persistent pricing complaints across 9+ years suggest this is a known business model rather than an anomaly.

Super Plumber shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning multiple years. While recent reviews (2024) praise punctuality and professionalism, older reviews (2012–2015) reveal serious issues with no-shows, poor workmanship, unresponsive customer service, and hidden charges. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple reports of missed appointments and poor communication. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, shoddy repairs, and failure to resolve underlying issues. Pricing concerns are explicit in at least one review regarding lack of transparency on service charges. The company appears to have had significant operational problems in the past, though recent activity suggests possible improvement.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 9–12 years old (2012–2015), while the single recent positive review is from 2024. This suggests either significant company improvement or potential selection bias in recent reviews.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star recent reviews and 1-star older reviews raises questions about company stability or management changes.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews explicitly mention unfinished repairs, poor wall restoration, and cosmetic issues (purple glue left on drain).
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least two reviews mention failure to show up for appointments or respond to calls, indicating systemic scheduling/communication problems.
• HIDDEN CHARGES: One review explicitly states lack of upfront pricing disclosure ($112 trip charge not communicated at booking).
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews reference failure to honor callbacks or follow-up commitments.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (6 reviews) and extreme temporal disparity; the company's current reliability cannot be confidently assessed when most negative data is 9+ years old and only one recent review exists.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for confidence. The reviews show highly polarized feedback: one 5-star review praising punctuality and work quality, but two 1-star reviews citing severe service failures (emergency callback delays, refusal to honor warranty/returns, cash-only policy). The extreme variance and very small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Reviews split between 5-star and 1-star with no middle ground, suggesting potential service inconsistency or different service lines.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2014-2015 (8-10 years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• MIXED BUSINESS OPERATIONS: Second 1-star review appears to reference a parts supplier (used radiators) rather than plumbing service, suggesting possible business model confusion or multiple service lines.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Emergency on-call service failure (5-hour delay + refusal to service) and refusal to honor returns/exchanges indicate serious customer service issues.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews, need minimum 5), extreme age of all reviews (8-10 years old with no recent data), and high polarization suggesting inconsistent service quality. Do not rely on this assessment for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one usable review was analyzed (the second review contains no text). The single review from August 2024 mentions punctuality and professionalism positively, quick job completion, and general satisfaction, but provides no specific details about pricing or technical expertise. With only 1 mention per dimension, confidence is severely limited and any score would be unreliable.

• Only 1 usable review out of 2 total — sample size is critically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Second review dated 2014 contains no text ('unknown') and cannot be analyzed
• Single review is generic in nature with no specific technical details or pricing information
• Review lacks substantive evidence to support scoring — relies on general praise without specifics

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient data (fewer than 3 usable reviews). Any scoring would be based on a single generic review and should not be trusted for decision-making.

With only two reviews, one strongly negative and one strongly positive, no reliable score can be calculated. The negative review describes serious misconduct: a customer paid $1,750 upfront, canceled before any work was performed, and alleges the company refused to return the money for over five weeks despite repeated promises — behavior the reviewer characterizes as criminal theft. The positive review praises professionalism, punctuality, cleanliness, and on-time completion by named workers William, Kevin, and Marcos. The stark contradiction between these two accounts, combined with the extremely small sample size, makes any aggregate score statistically meaningless and potentially misleading.

• CRITICAL FLAG: The negative review alleges financial misconduct — specifically, that the company cashed a $1,750 deposit check, performed no work, and refused to return funds after cancellation. This is a serious legal and ethical concern that goes beyond a typical service complaint.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews were provided. This is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score. All dimension scores should be treated as illustrative only.
• POLARIZED REVIEWS: One review is 1-star and one is 5-star with no middle ground, which may indicate either genuine inconsistency in service quality or the possibility that one or both reviews are not fully representative.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 5-star review, while containing some specific detail (named workers, schedule adherence), uses somewhat generic praise language. Cannot confirm authenticity with only two data points.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are from March 2024 and are within the past 12 months, so recency weighting does not differentiate them.

This WW Score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews were analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold, and the reviews are in direct conflict with one another, including a serious unresolved financial misconduct allegation.