Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

R.P. Smith Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism and project completion, with numerous reviewers citing punctuality, courteous staff, and jobs completed thoroughly and correctly. Experience scores are solid, with multiple reviews praising technicians for quickly diagnosing and resolving complex issues. However, pricing is a notable weak point — while many reviewers describe pricing as reasonable or fair, several explicitly call the company expensive or accuse them of hidden fees and hustling tactics, which meaningfully drags the pricing dimension down. There are also two serious negative reviews involving a no-show emergency situation and an unprofessional manager interaction, and one review where work was left incomplete due to backlog, which temper the otherwise strong project completion score.

• 7 reviews contain no text content — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the 'main water line' emergency review dated 2019-06-11 and 2019-03-31), suggesting a copy-paste submission. Only one was counted per dimension.
• Two reviews marked 'unknown' contain no usable text and were excluded from scoring.
• The review corpus spans from 2006 to 2023. The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, and only a handful are from the past 12 months (2022–2023). Recency is limited, which reduces confidence in current performance.
• Pricing dimension shows a clear split: multiple positive mentions of 'reasonable' pricing conflict directly with multiple negative reviews citing overpricing, hidden consult fees, and non-transparent quotes. This polarization is reflected in the conservative score of 65.
• One review (2016) explicitly notes work was not completed due to backlog — technicians opened holes in a wall but could not finish the repair. This is a meaningful project completion failure.
• One review (2015) notes the owner visited, promised a quote via email, and never followed through — a responsiveness and follow-through failure.
• One review (2019) describes an unprofessional manager/owner interaction where the owner refused to provide a courtesy callback, citing the customer as a non-paying client.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is reduced by the age of many reviews, several blank or duplicate submissions, and a meaningful minority of negative reviews citing pricing opacity, incomplete work, and unprofessional management conduct.

Mokher Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on consistent professionalism, punctuality, and courteous staff across many years of reviews. However, several credible negative reviews meaningfully drag down each dimension: pricing complaints include a $160 estimate fee, a $1,300 quote for a minor repair, and a billing dispute over inflated labor hours, which collectively suppress the pricing score significantly. Project completion is also impacted by a notable pattern of follow-through failures — one reviewer documented five appointments, $3,500 spent, and a still-leaking faucet, while another had pavers left unrepaired and no callback. Experience scores well on average due to multiple reviews praising problem-solving ability (e.g., resolving issues other plumbers could not), but is tempered by one reviewer whose plumber repeatedly called his boss for guidance. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with real operational inconsistencies that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• 11 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews are generic one-liners ('Excellent work', 'Good work', 'Quick response, smart and efficient plumber!') with no specifics. These were given minimal weight and not counted toward dimension mentions.
• The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2013–2022. Only a handful of reviews from the past 12 months (2024–2025) contain meaningful detail, which limits recency confidence.
• The 2024-06-09 date appears on multiple unrelated reviews simultaneously, suggesting possible date normalization or batch import rather than organic posting — treat clustering of same-date reviews with mild caution.
• Staffing shortage flagged explicitly in a 2024 review (2-star): technician availability has been a recurring concern, also noted in the 2021 5-star review. This is an operational risk worth noting for time-sensitive jobs.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should note that pricing transparency and project follow-through have generated credible, specific complaints that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong professionalism and experience ratings.

Ivan and AM South Plumbing receive strong praise across the majority of reviews for responsiveness, punctuality, and technical skill — particularly for emergency calls, water heater installations, camera inspections, and drain work. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and competitive, with one review explicitly noting a much lower quote than a competitor. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (5 out of 39, roughly 13%) describes a serious and recurring pattern: Ivan completes initial work, the problem recurs or is left incomplete, and he then becomes unresponsive — ghosting customers who paid for the job. This pattern directly impacts both the project completion and professionalism scores, as it represents not just poor workmanship follow-through but deliberate avoidance of accountability. The experience score is tempered by at least two cases where the root cause was misdiagnosed or the work did not meet code, despite Ivan being described as knowledgeable by many satisfied customers.

• RECURRING GHOSTING PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviews (2019-01-29, 2019-03-02, 2022-12-09, 2018-04-25) describe Ivan completing or partially completing a job, the problem persisting or new issues arising, and Ivan then becoming unreachable to existing customers while responding immediately to new inquiries. This is a significant and consistent behavioral pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE/SUBSTANDARD WORK: The 2019-03-02 review explicitly states Ivan's own water heater installation did not meet code and he acknowledged this but then ghosted the customer for nearly 3 weeks. The 2019-01-29 review notes another plumber solved the actual problem in 10 minutes at one-third the cost after Ivan's camera work failed to identify it.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: The 2022-12-09 review describes a price escalation from $175 to $500 mid-job, followed by an additional $500 septic charge, with the toilet remaining clogged and Ivan becoming unresponsive. The 2015-01-20 review also mentions being sold something unnecessary.
• LICENSE ISSUE NOTED: The 2019-01-29 review mentions observed license issues in 2017. This could not be verified from reviews alone but is flagged as a potential concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (December 2023) are positive. However, the critical negative reviews span 2015 through 2022, suggesting the ghosting/non-completion pattern is not isolated to an early period. Most reviews are older than 12 months as of a 2024 analysis date.
• REVIEW VOLUME SKEW: The majority of reviews are 5-star with limited detail, which slightly inflates positive signals. However, the negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, lending them strong credibility. No fake review pattern detected, but the contrast between vague 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star reviews warrants conservative scoring.

This WW Score is based on 39 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and is statistically reliable, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of job abandonment and customer ghosting that represents a material risk for any new customer engaging this contractor.

Amy's Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, friendliness, punctuality, and fair pricing across a large volume of reviews spanning several years. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — roughly 12 to 14 out of 109 — raises serious concerns across all four dimensions. Multiple negative reviewers describe failed repairs that were not corrected under warranty, technicians who misdiagnosed problems and charged for ineffective work, and a pattern of Amy or staff refusing to return for callbacks without additional charges. Pricing complaints include one reviewer alleging $1,000 was charged for a 15-minute roof flush and another citing $800 for a line flush that did not resolve the issue, while a separate reviewer found the quote for a simple valve replacement exorbitant. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with at least five reviews describing jobs left incomplete, incorrect installations causing leaks or mold, or follow-up appointments that were cancelled or simply never honored. The volume and specificity of negative reviews prevent this company from scoring in the high range despite the majority of customers reporting positive outcomes.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 2022-05-19 by a customer describing Amy and Derrick replacing a kitchen sink and garbage disposal appears verbatim twice — once with a timestamp of 17:43:38 and once with 00:00:00. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• DUPLICATE/NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (2022-04-08 and 2022-06-10) describe nearly identical experiences about calling 'big guys' who were unavailable, then calling Amy and having a simple water pressure fix done at a fair price. Language is highly similar. One may be a duplicate or the same customer posting twice. Counted once for scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED CALLBACKS: At least 5 distinct negative reviews (2025-05-10, 2024-06-09, 2022-11-15, 2021-10-21, 2020-08-19) describe the same pattern — work performed incorrectly, customer requests a return visit under warranty, and Amy's Plumbing either refuses without additional charge or simply never follows up. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2019–2024. The most recent reviews (2025) include both a strong positive cluster and one serious negative review about a water heater job done incorrectly with refusal to return. The negative pattern has persisted across multiple years, suggesting it has not been resolved.
• COMBATIVE OWNER RESPONSES: Two negative reviewers (2024-06-09 and 2022-11-15) explicitly describe Amy as combative or rude when confronted with complaints, and one accuses her of lying in a public response. This is a reputational risk factor.
• MISDIAGNOSIS CONCERN: The 2021-08-31 review describes two plumbers failing to diagnose a closed valve — a problem another plumber solved in under five minutes — and charging $225 for an ineffective repair. The 2024-06-09 negative review describes a $1,000 charge for a misdiagnosed grease clog that was actually tree roots under HOA responsibility. These suggest inconsistent technical competence across the crew.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (109 reviews) spanning approximately 8 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the persistent and specific nature of the negative reviews — particularly around warranty callbacks, misdiagnosis, and combative dispute resolution — means the score of 74.2 should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment rather than a strong endorsement; prospective customers should be aware of the documented risk of disputes if work requires follow-up.

New England Plumbing has a large and long-standing base of satisfied customers who consistently praise punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous service, driving solid scores in professionalism and project completion. However, the review set contains a meaningful cluster of serious negative reviews — including credible, detailed accounts of no-shows, overbilling, price inflation mid-job, and work left incomplete — that materially drag down all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call prices fair, multiple detailed negative reviews allege significant overcharging, hidden fees, and quotes that ballooned without consent, producing a below-average score. Project completion is moderately strong overall but is undermined by at least two explicit accounts of jobs left unresolved and one account of a no-show appointment. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of praise for technical skill, but is offset by reviews describing wrong parts installed, leaks left behind, and problems not actually fixed.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2018-06-11 and 2020-06-10 share identical dates with no specific job details, generic praise, and no timestamps, suggesting possible review padding. These were scored conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Four reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• UNKNOWN TECHNICIAN CONCERN: Several negative reviews reference a technician named 'Sebastian' who is described as dishonest, rude, and inexperienced across multiple reviews from 2017-2018. It is unclear if Sebastian is still employed. These reviews are older but credible due to specificity.
• DISPUTED TECHNICIAN — 2019: One review references a technician called 'Jo Miami' who allegedly left leaks, used wrong pipe materials, demanded cash only, and threatened the customer. This review is highly specific and credible but may reference a subcontractor rather than a core team member.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews (2025-02-28 and 2025-03-11) are detailed, timestamped, and highly credible — describing a no-show appointment, a price that doubled mid-job, work left incomplete, and an overbilling dispute with timestamped security footage cited. These recent negatives were weighted heavily.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of strongly positive reviews are from 2020 or earlier. While there are positive reviews from 2024-2025, the ratio of negative-to-positive reviews has worsened in recent years, suggesting a possible decline in service quality.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Per Rule 7, scores were held conservative given the mix of highly specific negative reviews against a backdrop of largely generic positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but consumers should weigh the recent (2025) detailed negative reviews heavily, as they suggest a meaningful and current risk of scheduling failures, mid-job price escalation, and incomplete work.

All Dade Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism across a large number of reviews, with repeated praise for polite, friendly, and communicative technicians. However, three notable negative reviews meaningfully drag down scores across all dimensions: one citing diagnostic incompetence (missed an incorrectly installed toilet), one citing a permitting failure and refusal to assist further, and one detailing billing irregularities involving an elderly customer charged for a trainee's learning time. Project completion is tempered by a multi-visit dishwasher installation that involved delays, double charges, and a disputed water heater issue. Pricing receives a moderate-to-poor score because while several reviewers found pricing fair or reasonable, at least two reviews explicitly flagged overcharging or billing concerns. Experience scores reflect a mix of genuinely skilled work praised in multiple reviews offset by documented instances of poor diagnostic judgment.

• Three reviews rated 1–2 stars document substantive complaints: diagnostic incompetence (2021), permitting negligence and refusal to assist (2018), and questionable billing practices targeting an elderly customer (2017). These are not vague complaints and meaningfully reduce confidence in consistent quality.
• Several older reviews (2016–2019) make up a significant portion of the dataset. Reviews from the past 12 months (2024) number only 3, limiting insight into current performance. Recency weighting applied accordingly.
• No clear fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, and sentiment, and include named technicians across multiple reviews, which adds authenticity.
• The 2018 permitting review raises a compliance concern: failure to advise a client about required city permits and subsequent refusal to assist is a serious professional and legal flag that goes beyond typical service quality issues.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews spanning 2016–2024 with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reasonable, but the significant proportion of older reviews and the presence of three substantive negative reviews mean the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of current performance rather than a definitive quality rating.