Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

Gobie Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication and knowledgeable technicians who explain their work clearly. However, pricing concerns emerge consistently across reviews, with complaints about high charges relative to work performed and lack of transparency on material costs. Project completion shows mixed results, with some jobs completed well but at least one instance of substandard work (crimp connections instead of welding) causing ongoing leaks. Technical expertise is evident in diagnostic ability and knowledge of older homes, but execution quality and billing practices undermine overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2011-2016). Only 2 reviews from 2020 and 2024 provide recent data. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews (2016, 2011) cite significant overcharging and lack of transparency. One review documents $1,700 charge for ~2 hours of work with undisclosed material costs. Another documents $150 charge for pre-visit preparation without diagnosis.
• QUALITY EXECUTION ISSUE: 2016 review explicitly states promised welded fittings were replaced with crimp connections that subsequently leaked, causing ongoing problems.
• COMMUNICATION WEAKNESS: 2014 review acknowledges administrative and communication gaps requiring follow-ups to reach someone.
• ONE POTENTIALLY IRRELEVANT REVIEW: 2018 review appears to be a solicitation call (offering theatre tickets) rather than a customer service experience and may not reflect actual plumbing service quality.

This score should be treated with caution due to heavy reliance on reviews older than 8 years, significant pricing complaints across multiple time periods, and documented quality execution issues. The recent positive reviews (2020, 2024) suggest possible improvement, but insufficient recent data prevents high confidence in current performance.

JMK Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, technical expertise, and project completion capabilities, with consistent praise for knowledgeable technicians, timely service, and thorough work. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging for basic tasks ($475 for a 30-minute toilet valve replacement, $800-$1100 estimates rejected in favor of $200 alternatives elsewhere). The company shows good follow-through and customer communication, but pricing transparency and fairness issues materially impact overall trustworthiness. The WW Score reflects solid execution offset by legitimate pricing concerns.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 9 reviews lack dates and contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics ('Fantastic job!!', 'Good work', '.', '1'). These appear to be placeholder or artificially generated reviews and significantly reduce confidence in the overall rating distribution.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews explicitly cite overpricing ($475 for basic 30-min task, $800-$1100 estimates vs. $200 competitor pricing), while other reviews praise 'reasonable' or 'fair' pricing. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or selective service tiers.
• ESTIMATE ACCURACY ISSUE: One detailed review describes technician errors requiring a supervisor visit and additional $650 camera charge after initial estimate, indicating potential training or quality control gaps in the estimation process.
• RECENCY BIAS: Only 8 of 25 reviews have verifiable dates; 6 dated reviews are from 2024 (recent), but 17 reviews lack dates entirely, making temporal trend analysis impossible.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While dated reviews (2024) show consistent professionalism and completion quality, the absence of dates on 68% of reviews—many containing generic or minimal content—suggests potential review manipulation. Pricing concerns are well-documented in dated reviews and represent a genuine weakness. The WW Score reflects real operational strengths but is inflated by low-quality undated reviews; actual trustworthiness is likely 5-10 points lower than reported.

Joseph Plumbing demonstrates strong project completion and technical experience across multiple reviews, with customers praising skill, reliability, and follow-through on callbacks. Professionalism is consistently noted with positive communication and customer service. However, a critical 2021 review reveals a serious incident involving a gas leak during water heater installation where the company denied responsibility and refused warranty service, significantly impacting overall trustworthiness. Pricing data is minimal with only one negative mention of unexpected charges. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid execution capability offset by the documented service failure and pricing concern.

• CRITICAL: 2021 review documents a gas safety hazard (pilot light malfunction, gas smell, confirmed leak by gas company) following installation, with company refusing responsibility and demanding payment for correction. This is a serious liability and professionalism failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of six reviews are from 2018-2019 and one from 2006. Only two reviews are from 2024 and 2021. Recent data is limited.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only one review mentions pricing/charges (the negative 2021 incident). Cannot reliably assess pricing dimension.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2018-2019 lack specific technical details and use similar praise language ('fantastic,' 'highly recommend,' 'trust completely'), though this may reflect genuine satisfaction rather than fake reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from past 3 years), sparse pricing information, and a documented safety/service failure that raises serious concerns about accountability and quality control despite otherwise positive feedback on execution.

Hanlon Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores 78 based on 7 mentions highlighting responsiveness, politeness, and efficiency, though two reviews cite poor phone attitude and lack of follow-through. Pricing averages 68 across 5 mentions—while several customers praise reasonable rates, one customer was charged $580 for incomplete work and quoted $1200 for additional work, creating significant pricing concerns. Project completion scores 72 based on 6 mentions; multiple jobs were completed successfully, but two critical failures (clog not cleared, sewage overflow, failure to locate existing cleanout) substantially lower this dimension. Experience scores 82 based on 5 mentions of skilled, knowledgeable technicians, though the same failures indicate inconsistent technical execution. The company's performance appears highly variable, with strong positive reviews offset by serious service failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 9 reviews are older than 5 years (2015-2019). Only 2 reviews from past 3 years. Recent data is limited.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews document significant failures—incomplete clog removal, sewage overflow into walls, failure to locate existing cleanout, and poor customer service recovery. These are not minor issues.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One customer charged $580 for incomplete work and quoted $1200 for additional work, while others praise 'reasonable' pricing. Suggests pricing may vary significantly or lack transparency.
• CALLBACK/WARRANTY CONCERN: Review from 2018 indicates customer was charged 3x original price for callback to fix failed work, suggesting no warranty or guarantee on initial service.
• POTENTIAL POSITIVE BIAS: Multiple 5-star reviews use similar generic praise language ('reliable,' 'professional,' 'honest') with minimal specific detail, though this may reflect genuine satisfaction rather than fake reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews in past 3 years) and significant documented service failures that contradict positive reviews, suggesting inconsistent quality and potential customer service issues that may not be fully captured by the aggregate score.

Hodges Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for politeness, responsiveness, and skilled workmanship. However, the WW Score is significantly impacted by serious project completion failures: incomplete work (water heater installation missing pan and drain line), unresponsiveness to insurance inquiries, emergency service delays, and one review stating work was not performed at all. Pricing is generally fair and transparent when work is completed. The company shows excellence in normal circumstances but critical gaps in handling complex situations, emergency responsiveness, and follow-through on incomplete jobs.

• CRITICAL: Multiple project completion failures documented—incomplete water heater installation (2023), emergency service delayed 48 hours (2014), work allegedly not performed (2013), and refusal to communicate with insurance company (2015). These are not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2021 (5–8 years old). Recent reviews (2023) show serious quality control issues. Trend suggests possible decline in service standards.
• RESPONSIVENESS RED FLAG: Two separate reviews cite communication failures—refusal to take calls and provide estimates to insurance company (2015), and delayed emergency response (2014). This contradicts the professionalism scores from other reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: The 2023 water heater review reveals the company did not install required safety components (drain pan, drain line) and blamed the customer for not requesting removal of old unit. This suggests inadequate quality control and customer education.
• One review text is 'unknown' (2016-03-06)—minimal data value but counted as 5-star.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 74.8 reflects mixed performance, the underlying data reveals a troubling pattern of project completion failures and communication breakdowns in recent years that are not fully captured by the aggregate score. The company excels in routine work and professionalism but has documented critical failures in emergency response, incomplete installations, and customer service responsiveness. Prospective customers should prioritize recent reviews and clarify expectations around project scope and emergency availability before engaging.

Elite Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While many customers praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill—particularly from named technicians like Moises, Angel, and Harry—a substantial minority report serious failures in punctuality, communication, and follow-through. Pricing complaints center on overcharging during emergencies and lack of transparency. The company demonstrates strong technical capability and often delivers quality work, but reliability and consistency are major weaknesses that undermine overall trustworthiness.

• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark divide between highly positive and highly negative reviews suggests inconsistent service quality across different technicians or time periods. Some customers report excellent experiences while others report identical failures (no-shows, no calls, poor communication).
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple detailed complaints about unprofessional behavior, poor communication, missed appointments without notification, and dismissive attitudes. At least 8 reviews explicitly cite no-shows or failure to call.
• PRICING RED FLAGS: At least 3 reviews cite overcharging or price gouging, particularly during emergencies (septic tank emergency at $596 vs. normal $350; toilet unclog at $675 described as 'outrageous'). One review notes company quoted over phone and honored price, but this is exception not rule.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2015-2022 period; more recent reviews (2023-2025) skew positive. However, negative reviews from 2024-2025 still present, indicating ongoing issues.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain no text or only ratings, reducing data quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews from 2022-06-10 and 2024-06-09 are suspiciously generic with minimal detail ('Great service!', empty text with 5-star rating). However, detailed positive reviews with specific technician names and circumstances appear authentic.
• LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION ISSUES: Multiple reviews mention technicians who speak no English, creating communication barriers for customers.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews cite lack of follow-up calls, incomplete jobs requiring callbacks, and failure to verify work completion.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on substantial review volume (56 reviews), the extreme polarization between 5-star and 1-star ratings, combined with documented patterns of no-shows and pricing disputes, suggests the company's actual reliability is lower than the score indicates. The score reflects an average across highly inconsistent service delivery. Customers should expect variable quality and should verify pricing and scheduling commitments in writing before engaging this contractor.