Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

Bob's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly technicians — many reviewers mention using the company for years or decades. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and credible pattern of complaints about rude office/receptionist staff, with at least 7 distinct reviews citing dismissive or unprofessional phone interactions. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers with specific detail allege overbilling, undisclosed credit card surcharges, quotes not honored, and charges significantly exceeding estimates — these are not vague complaints but include documented evidence such as Ring doorbell footage and itemized disputes. Project completion scores moderately well, with most jobs described as finished promptly, but there are notable failures including a misdiagnosed water heater issue requiring a second plumber, an abandoned leak, a shower pan installed without proper floor support, and at least one no-show appointment. Experience scores positively overall, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe incorrect installations or work that had to be redone.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review about a tub drain line leak saving $450 (Mike, Frank) appears verbatim twice with different dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-08-02). The negative water heater review ('Quoted $950, Tech installed without a pan, then told me $1150') also appears verbatim twice with different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-02-26). The negative water heater misdiagnosis review ('Bob's came out and moved our downstairs Water Heater...') appears verbatim twice (2022-06-10 and 2021-07-06). These duplicates suggest either review platform artifacts or potential manipulation and have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW DETECTED: One 5-star review (2024-06-09) references a 'tea room,' 'cucumber finger sandwiches,' and 'walking the zoo' — this is clearly a review left for the wrong business and was excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECEPTIONIST/OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: At least 7 distinct reviews specifically cite rude, dismissive, or unprofessional behavior from the person answering the phone. This is a consistent and credible pattern that materially lowers the professionalism score.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple detailed, credible reviews allege overbilling by hours (supported by Ring doorbell footage in one case), quotes not honored (job went from $2,700 to $4,200 in one review; $950 quote became $1,150 in another), undisclosed credit card surcharges, and material prices charged at double retail. These are serious and specific allegations that significantly reduce the pricing score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2014 to 2025. Reviews from 2014–2019 are given reduced weight. The majority of reviews are from 2021 onward. Negative pricing and professionalism complaints are present across multiple recent years (2022–2025), suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW-MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 contain very generic, short praise with no specifics ('Great work,' 'amazing love them,' 'Reliable, do good work,' 'Excellent service! You cannot beat it!'). While not conclusive, the identical dates and lack of detail for multiple reviews in these clusters is a mild flag. Confidence is not significantly reduced given the large volume of detailed, specific reviews overall.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (155 reviews spanning 2014–2025) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a clearly irrelevant review, a persistent pattern of credible pricing complaints with documented specifics, and recurring office staff professionalism issues that represent a genuine and ongoing operational weakness.

AAA Plumbing & Rooter Service has a large volume of positive reviews praising responsiveness, same-day service, fair pricing, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing tasks. However, the review set contains a significant number of serious negative reviews describing unprofessional phone conduct, no-shows, failure to reschedule, and one detailed and credible account of deceptive billing practices — including the contractor allegedly self-identifying as 'a shady motherfucker.' This same negative account appears verbatim across two platforms (Google and Yelp), lending it additional credibility. Several negative reviews also describe rude, erratic, or hostile communication from the owner, which meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. The positive reviews, while numerous, show patterns of generic phrasing, embedded website links, and suspiciously clustered dates that raise fake review concerns, reducing confidence in the upper end of the score range.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Multiple reviews contain embedded links to aaaplumbingservices.com, which is atypical of genuine customer reviews and suggests possible solicited or planted reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of 5-star reviews share the same date (2024-06-09) with no specific job details, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized review posting.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several reviews are extremely generic ('Great service', 'Quick and high quality service', 'The best of the best!!') with no verifiable detail, inflating the positive signal artificially.
• CREDIBLE NEGATIVE — DECEPTIVE BILLING: One detailed negative review appears identically on both Google (2025-05-10) and Yelp (2024-06-30), describing a $820 charge for a ~$4 toilet ring replacement, with the contractor allegedly admitting 'YES! I'M A SHADY MOTHERFUCKER.' The cross-platform consistency and specificity of this account lend it high credibility.
• CREDIBLE NEGATIVE — NO-SHOWS AND GHOSTING: Multiple independent negative reviews (2018-09-11, 2018-09-12, 2017-11-22, 2015-09-16) describe confirmed no-shows, failure to reschedule, and complete loss of contact after booking — a serious project completion concern.
• CREDIBLE NEGATIVE — HOSTILE COMMUNICATION: Multiple reviewers (2016-12-21, 2016-02-03, 2015-03-20, 2014-09-25) describe the owner being rude, making inappropriate comments, sending hostile texts, and asking a customer 'Are you Jewish?' — a serious professionalism concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: Many reviews span from 2005 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 (the majority of the dataset) are given reduced weight. The most recent negative review (May 2025) and the most recent positive reviews (May 2025) are both present, indicating the mixed pattern persists to the present day.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several entries contained no review text and only a star rating; these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously — the presence of credible, detailed negative reviews describing fraud, no-shows, and hostile conduct, combined with strong indicators of fake positive reviews, means the true service quality is likely lower than the numerical score suggests for any given customer engagement.

American Leak Detection of South Florida receives strong praise from a large majority of reviewers for technician professionalism, punctuality, and communication — with many named technicians (Kris, Dan, Tom, Alan, Caleb, Jesse, James, Milton) repeatedly cited as courteous, thorough, and knowledgeable. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures in project completion, including incorrect leak location diagnoses that led to costly unnecessary repairs, failure to find leaks at all, and poor follow-through after payment. Pricing is a notable concern, with several reviewers describing fees as high or not justified by results, and at least two reviewers explicitly stating they paid for inaccurate or incomplete work with no refund. Experience scores are tempered by credible accounts of technicians who failed to correctly identify leaks, called colleagues for help mid-job, or missed obvious sources — offsetting the many positive skill-related mentions. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled and professional technicians in many cases, but with systemic issues around accountability, follow-up, and consistency of diagnostic accuracy.

• 14 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A disproportionate number of recent (2025) reviews are brief, generic, and uniformly 5-star with minimal specifics. While not conclusively fake, this pattern warrants caution and reduced weight on those reviews.
• Multiple negative reviews (2018–2024) describe the same failure pattern: incorrect leak location diagnosis, unnecessary destructive work, and no accountability or refund from management. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2021) describes complete failure to receive a callback despite multiple attempts, and another (2020) describes a no-show appointment with no follow-up — suggesting possible office/scheduling reliability issues.
• One negative review (2024) describes a pool leak that was never fully resolved across three technician visits, with the supervisor being dismissive and the warranty voided on a technicality.
• Recency note: The majority of negative reviews are from 2018–2024. The 2025 reviews are almost entirely positive. This could reflect genuine improvement, or it could reflect a review solicitation campaign. Score confidence is maintained but this divergence is noted.
• One review (2024) raises a language accessibility concern — the company reportedly could not serve a Spanish-speaking customer in Miami. This is a service limitation worth noting for prospective customers.

This WW Score is based on 58 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the credible pattern of diagnostic errors and accountability failures documented in negative reviews against the strong technician-level praise seen in the majority of recent reviews.

R&N Plumbing receives strong praise across pricing, experience, and general professionalism from the majority of reviewers, with many customers highlighting Ruben's technical knowledge, fair rates, and responsive communication. However, a persistent and credible pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return for warranty/callback work significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. At least 7 distinct reviews describe being stood up without notice or having unresolved follow-up work ignored for weeks or months, including a faucet leak left unaddressed for 50+ days. The project completion score is the most penalized dimension, reflecting both abandoned callbacks and at least one instance of a job that failed shortly after completion. Pricing and experience scores remain relatively strong because the negative reviews rarely dispute the quality or cost of work that was actually completed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-07-11) are nearly word-for-word identical, describing a faucet leak ignored for 50+ days since 5/31. This appears to be the same reviewer posting on two platforms or at two times. Counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviewers (2019-03-03, 2021-01-26, 2021-03-19, 2022-06-10, 2023-12-28) describe scheduled appointments where Ruben or his team failed to show up and did not communicate. This is a recurring operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• CALLBACK/WARRANTY FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviewers (2024-06-09, 2019-09-18, 2025-05-10) describe being ignored after raising post-service issues, including a leak that returned and a pump that stopped working. This pattern materially lowers the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The no-show and callback failure complaints span from 2019 through 2025-05-10 (most recent review), indicating this is not a resolved historical issue. The most recent review (2025-05-10) includes a new leak-blame complaint, suggesting the problem persists.
• TWO REVIEWS FLAGGED AS LOW UTILITY: The review dated 2015-10-29 ('unknown') and 2013-10-07 ('He did an excellent job.') contain no actionable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS POTENTIALLY GENERIC: The 2021-01-26 5-star review ('Best Plumbing has been the most outstanding plumbing service we have ever received') mentions no specific details, no plumber name, and no job type. Treated with low weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2018-2020. While the business has recent positive reviews (2024-2025), the volume of detailed praise has declined while critical reviews have continued.

This WW Score is based on 67 reviews spanning 2013–2025 with a large usable dataset, giving the score HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously for leak repairs and any work requiring follow-up or callbacks, where a documented and recurring pattern of non-response represents a meaningful risk to customers.

1/2 Price Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise individual technicians — especially Chris, Matt, Diego, and Zach — for punctuality, friendliness, and professionalism. However, the review set contains a meaningful number of serious negative reviews that cannot be dismissed: multiple customers report abandoned or incomplete jobs, an owner who blocked a client and refused refunds, a no-show appointment with no apology, and at least one credible allegation of significant price gouging on permit fees and parts. Pricing is the most contested dimension — while many reviewers praise affordability, several explicitly call out overcharging, and one review provides detailed receipts comparing charges to market rates. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with at least four reviews describing work left unfinished, unreturned calls, or jobs that failed inspection. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths in day-to-day service delivery but a documented pattern of serious failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• 4 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Multiple serious project completion failures reported: one customer describes an abandoned job with a pipe left draining into a tub and a lawsuit filed; another describes a hole cut in their ceiling with no repair completed and unreturned calls; a third describes work that failed inspection and required $538 in remedial repairs.
• One detailed review (2023-04-11) provides itemized evidence of price gouging: $360.25 charged for an online permit obtainable directly from the city, and $275 charged for a part available at Home Depot for under $20. This is a significant credibility concern for the 'half price' brand claim.
• One review (2020-10-15) explicitly questions whether positive reviews are contrived, citing the contrast between glowing reviews and their own negative experience. While this alone is not proof of fake reviews, the volume of short, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics warrants mild caution.
• The owner (Paul) is mentioned negatively in two separate reviews — one describing a hostile response and blocking a client's number, another describing a no-show with no apology or remedy offered. Owner behavior is a material risk factor.
• One review (2020-03-13) alleges the company referred a water damage restoration company that billed the customer's insurance $6,000 for minimal work. This is a serious allegation of potential fraud by a referred partner, though it does not directly implicate the plumbing company's own work.
• Most reviews with strong positive detail are from 2019–2024, which is a reasonable recency window. However, several of the most serious negative reviews also fall within this period, so recency does not favor the positive reviews disproportionately.
• Confidence in pricing score is tempered by the direct conflict between reviews praising affordability and reviews with documented evidence of overcharging. The score reflects this split rather than defaulting to either extreme.

This WW Score is based on 58 reviews with usable content and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate-trust signal given the documented pattern of serious failures in project completion and pricing transparency that appear across multiple independent reviewers.

Alexis/Caleb Service receives strong praise across the majority of reviews for responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and professionalism, with many customers highlighting same-day or next-day availability and clear communication. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, with one reviewer specifically noting he revised his quote downward after completing less work than anticipated, and another citing lower-than-competitor quotes. However, several serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down all dimensions: one reviewer documented a dangerous TV mount failure with property damage and an aggressive demand for payment on incomplete work; another described an 8-hour botched job requiring three supply runs with amateur-quality results; a third reported a no-show across two scheduled days; and a fourth alleged the contractor deleted video evidence needed for an insurance claim. Project completion is particularly impacted by these incidents of abandoned, incomplete, or poorly executed work. Experience scores are tempered by the documented skill failures in the negative reviews, which describe a contractor who was unprepared, made serious technical errors, and lacked the knowledge to complete jobs correctly.

• Multiple serious 1-star reviews describe distinct and credible negative experiences including property damage, aggressive payment demands on incomplete work, no-shows, and alleged deletion of insurance documentation — these are not generic complaints and carry significant weight.
• One reviewer (2023-10-24) explicitly states the work was 'amateur' quality, required three supply runs for a simple job, took 8 hours, and was 'not worth the cost' — directly contradicting the skill-level praise in positive reviews.
• One reviewer (2020-09-29) provides detailed photographic evidence of a TV mount failure and wall damage, and describes the contractor attempting to pressure them for payment on an incomplete and damaging job — this is a serious professionalism and experience flag.
• One reviewer (2023-07-28) reports the contractor fled after being asked for a written estimate, suggesting possible avoidance of accountability or documentation.
• One reviewer (2022-10-12) alleges the contractor claimed to take video of pipes for insurance purposes but later admitted to deleting it — if accurate, this represents a significant integrity concern.
• One reviewer (2021-05-22) documents two consecutive no-shows across a Friday and Saturday, with the contractor arriving 2 hours late on the rescheduled day and the customer no longer home — a clear punctuality and reliability failure.
• Several positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Alex did a good job and excellent handyman') with no specific details, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews, though the majority of positive reviews do contain specific details.
• Review dates span from 2020 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly positive, but the sample size for 2024 is small (5 reviews). The negative reviews are spread across 2020–2023, suggesting the issues are not isolated to a single period.
• Cash-only payment policy noted in one negative review (2021-05-22) — this is a minor flag for transparency and consumer protection.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it reasonable statistical reliability, but the presence of multiple detailed, credible, and serious negative reviews — including documented property damage, no-shows, and alleged fraud — means the score should be treated with caution and prospective customers should review the negative feedback carefully before hiring.