Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

Acosta Plumbing receives strong praise across multiple reviews for responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship, with several reviewers specifically highlighting knowledgeable technicians and transparent communication. However, the dataset contains two significant negative reviews that meaningfully drag down scores: one describes a serious workmanship failure involving incorrectly installed fixtures requiring legal action and a full tile wall removal, and another describes a complete communication breakdown during the quoting process. A third review flags a professionalism concern where a technician broke a sprinkler head and failed to disclose it. These negative data points are credible, specific, and recent, and cannot be dismissed. Pricing scores remain relatively strong as the majority of reviewers who mentioned cost found it fair and competitive, with no reports of hidden charges.

• One review (2024-03-12) describes serious workmanship failures including an incorrectly installed shower drain and valve, refusal of the owner to return calls, and resulting legal action. This is a high-severity flag that significantly impacts project completion and experience scores.
• One review (2022-11-20) describes a technician breaking a sprinkler head and failing to disclose it to the customer — a transparency and professionalism concern.
• One review (2023-11-27) and one review (2022-10-16) both describe communication breakdowns where the company stopped responding after initial contact, indicating a recurring responsiveness issue.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, rating, and tone. Negative reviews are detailed and credible. No suspicious uniformity observed.
• Three reviews are older than 24 months (2022 range). The most recent reviews (2024) include both a strong positive and the most severe negative review, suggesting performance inconsistency persists into the current period.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions at HIGH confidence, but the presence of a legally disputed workmanship failure, a non-disclosure incident, and two separate communication breakdowns introduce meaningful downside risk that the score reflects — this score should be treated as a cautious moderate rating rather than a strong endorsement.

1 Time Plumbing earns strong marks across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised quality — every single review references punctuality, communication, responsiveness, or attitude in some form. Pricing is noted favorably in four reviews, with two customers explicitly stating they received the lowest quote among multiple competitors, supporting a high pricing score at moderate confidence. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished same-day, next-day, and even with added scope beyond the original request, though two older reviews are brief and offer limited completion detail. Experience scores well based on multiple accounts of solving problems other plumbers could not, handling complex pipe replacements, and diagnosing issues quickly — however, the overall review pool is small at only 8 reviews, which limits the reliability of all scores.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though most reviews contain specific job details, named plumbers, and varied language that reduces the likelihood of fabrication.
• 5 of the 8 reviews are dated 2021 or earlier, meaning the majority of data is more than 3 years old. Only 3 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024). Recent performance may differ from historical scores.
• Multiple plumbers are named across reviews (Judson, Eddie, Tommy), which is consistent with a legitimate small business but means individual technician quality may vary — scores reflect the company as a whole, not any single plumber.
• Review volume is low (8 total). All dimension scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive until more reviews are available.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity and variety of the reviews, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small review pool, the age of the majority of reviews, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback.

Baron Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a small but consistently positive set of reviews. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with six of seven reviewers explicitly noting promptness, politeness, clear communication, and respectful demeanor. Project completion is also well-supported, with multiple reviewers describing challenging multi-issue jobs that were seen through to resolution, including persistent drain clearing and discovery of additional problems. Experience is reflected in reviewers praising Zal's technical knowledge, problem-solving persistence, and ability to handle both residential and commercial work. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with one reviewer noting Baron's quote was nearly half that of a competitor, though the sample is modest. One review (Zalman/job never came) provided no usable technical data and was counted only for professionalism context.

• Small sample size of only 7 reviews — all scores should be treated with caution despite some HIGH confidence labels driven by mention counts meeting the 5+ threshold.
• Four of seven reviews are older than 12 months (pre-October 2023), with only two reviews from the past 12 months (Oct 2024 and Feb 2024). Recent performance data is limited.
• All reviews are 4 or 5 stars with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake-review suspicion, the uniformly positive ratings on a small sample warrants mild caution.
• One review ('Zalman is great to work with. Although this job never came...') provides almost no usable scoring data and was largely excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a small but detail-rich review set; it is moderately reliable for professionalism, project completion, and experience, but the low total review count and recency gaps mean the score should be treated as a promising early signal rather than a fully validated assessment.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with rapid emergency response times (under 30 minutes) and courteous service mentioned across multiple reviews. Pricing is consistently described as good and fair. Project completion is evidenced by successful emergency repairs and thorough cleanup. However, the sample size is very small (4 reviews), most are older than 1 year (3 of 4 from 2018-2019), and no specific technical expertise or workmanship quality details are provided beyond emergency responsiveness.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• 3 of 4 reviews are from 2018-2019 (5+ years old); only 1 review from 2024 provides recent data
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — potential selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Reviews lack specific technical details about workmanship quality, materials used, or long-term durability
• Experience dimension has no data — no reviews explicitly discuss skill level or problem-solving complexity
• Generic praise language ('awesome experience', 'really recommend') without detailed specifics raises minor authenticity concerns

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (4 reviews), age of most data (5+ years), and absence of any negative feedback or technical detail. The score reflects strong emergency response and customer satisfaction but lacks sufficient evidence to be considered highly reliable.

Tamiami Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in project completion (88.0) and experience/workmanship (87.0). Professionalism scores well at 82.0, though one significant negative review from 2019 involving poor customer service and scheduling management tempers this score. Pricing is competitive and transparent (85.0). However, the dataset is heavily weighted toward older reviews (most from 2006–2019), with only one review from 2021, limiting confidence in current performance standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 8 of 10 reviews are older than 5 years (2006–2019). Only 1 review from past 3 years (2021). Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: One detailed 1-star review (2019) explicitly documents poor professionalism, rudeness, and lack of client loyalty—directly contradicting the overwhelmingly positive narrative. This is a material concern that cannot be ignored.
• GENERIC REVIEW: Review dated 2014-10-15 contains only 'unknown' text with 5-star rating. This review is unusable and excluded from scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'reasonable pricing,' 'highly recommend,' 'very pleased'). However, reviews span 14+ years and include one credible negative review, so pattern is not conclusive of fabrication.
• MISSING DETAIL: Two reviews (2007, 2006) lack specific dates (00:00:00 timestamp) and contain generic praise without specifics, reducing their evidentiary weight.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (90% of reviews are 5+ years old) and one credible negative review documenting serious professionalism failures. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects historical performance but may not represent current service quality. Recent customer feedback is urgently needed to validate whether the 2019 management issues have been resolved.

Dr. Pipe demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is a clear strength, with multiple reviews highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, courteous staff, and clear communication. Project completion is reliable, with jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on available mentions, though fewer reviews explicitly address value. Technical skill and problem-solving are evident across diverse job types (septic, drain clearing, water heater, plumbing repairs). However, the majority of reviews are significantly dated (2013-2021), with only one review from 2022, limiting confidence in current service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 8 of 9 reviews are from 2013-2021, with only 1 review from 2022. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Review 1 (2022-11-10) contains excessive enthusiasm markers ('Oh my God!!!', 'one hundred stars', 'above and behold') and generic praise without specific technical details, which contrasts with the more measured tone of older reviews. This may warrant skepticism.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 3 reviews explicitly mention pricing/value. Confidence in pricing dimension is constrained by low mention count.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias—most data is 8+ years old and may not reflect current operations. The score is moderately reliable for historical performance but cannot confidently predict present-day service quality without recent reviews.