Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

Island Plumbing exhibits a highly polarized performance profile with significant inconsistency across reviews. While positive reviews consistently praise individual technicians (Raul, Gustavo, Zach, Glen, Kim) for punctuality, professionalism, and quality work, negative reviews reveal systemic issues with responsiveness, follow-through, and accountability. The company struggles most with project completion and reliability—multiple customers report no-shows, missed callbacks, and abandoned work. Pricing transparency is a major concern, with numerous complaints about hidden charges, excessive markups, and failure to honor quoted estimates. The professionalism score is dragged down by dispatcher rudeness, poor communication, and lack of remorse when service failures occur.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The water heater complaint ($2,985 charge with no hot water on Friday) appears identically 3 times (2022-06-10, 2021-10-16 twice), suggesting either fake reviews or a single customer posting repeatedly. This inflates negative sentiment artificially.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The toilet installation no-show with Erica C. appears twice identically (2022-06-10 and 2021-06-09), further suggesting review manipulation or duplicate posting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The water valve callout charge ($130 for non-plumbing issue) appears 3 times identically (2021-06-10, 2020-09-11 twice), indicating potential fake review pattern.
• SUSPICIOUS GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple 5-star reviews with minimal detail ('Amazing experience!', 'Great', 'Very Professional and efficient', 'Reasonable service and accommodating team') lack specificity and may be placeholder or fake reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: 'La comida muy deliciosa' (The food is very delicious) dated 2020-06-10 is clearly not about plumbing services and appears to be misplaced or spam.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only ratings with no text (blank reviews dated 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2016-01-22, 2015-12-03, 2013-02-11), suggesting data quality issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2018-2022 (older than 1 year). Only 5 reviews are from 2025 and 2 from 2024, limiting ability to assess current performance. Recent reviews (2025, early 2024) are predominantly 5-star, while older reviews show more balanced criticism.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least 6 distinct reviews mention failure to show up, missed appointments, or broken promises regarding arrival times—this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF POOR FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly mention unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and lack of callback—indicating a chronic communication/accountability problem.
• PATTERN OF PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least 12 reviews mention overcharging, hidden fees, lack of transparency, or excessive markups—this is a consistent complaint across different time periods.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with CAUTION due to significant data quality issues (duplicate reviews, empty reviews, irrelevant entries) and a highly polarized review distribution that suggests either inconsistent service delivery or review manipulation. The score reflects genuine customer experiences but is inflated negatively by duplicate complaints and lacks sufficient recent data (only 7 reviews from past 12 months) to confidently assess current performance. The company appears to have strong individual technicians but systemic operational failures in scheduling, communication, and accountability. Prospective customers should request specific technician assignments and obtain written guarantees before committing.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and spans over two decades, making reliable assessment difficult. Recent reviews (2023–2024) include serious allegations: one reviewer claims the contractor is unlicensed and overcharges for poor work, another accuses the company of fabricating a plumbing problem to extract nearly $3,000, and a third documents late arrivals, price discrepancies, and dirty workmanship. These are offset by several genuine-seeming positive reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and fair pricing — most notably a long-term customer of 10+ years. Pricing is a particular concern, with multiple independent reviewers citing overcharging or bait-and-switch pricing tactics. Project completion also has documented failures, including a contractor who abandoned a gas installation job out of anger and workers who left job sites dirty and unfinished.

• SERIOUS CREDIBILITY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor is not a licensed plumber (2024-07-06). This is a significant red flag that could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants independent verification before hiring.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: A 2024-01-10 review accuses the company of fabricating a plumbing problem to charge $2,600 for unnecessary work. The reviewer states a second plumber resolved the issue with a simple snake. This is a serious allegation.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple independent reviewers (2023-04-12, 2024-01-10, 2024-07-06) cite overcharging, hidden fees, or prices that changed after the job. This pattern across unrelated reviews is a meaningful signal.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2003 or earlier (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007), which are over 20 years old and carry very little weight in assessing current service quality. These were included in mention counts but given minimal scoring weight.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW MIX: Reviews reference multiple named individuals (Cale, Gary, Guillermo, Eric Brown) and appear to describe different contractors or companies. This suggests the review pool may aggregate reviews for more than one business, reducing the reliability of any composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older reviews (2000–2003) are written in all-caps with generic praise and no specifics. While this may reflect the review platform style of that era, they add little evidentiary value and were treated with reduced confidence.
• ABANDONED WORK DOCUMENTED: A 2018 review documents a contractor (Cale) refusing to complete a gas installation job because a different plumber had finished the water portion — a clear project completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: A 2023 review documents workers leaving job sites dirty, arriving late, and rushing work due to scheduling pressure from the company.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while mention counts are high enough to generate scores, the review pool spans 24 years, likely covers multiple contractors or business entities, and contains serious unresolved allegations of unlicensed work, fraud, and price manipulation that materially drag down trustworthiness.

Alfaro Plumbing shows a mixed but generally functional track record across a small review set. Professionalism scores reasonably well, with multiple reviewers noting friendliness, responsiveness, and cleanliness — however, one serious complaint about the contractor going silent after a job and failing to pass a required city inspection significantly drags this dimension down. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: the 2019 review explicitly describes an unfinished job with open walls, a failed inspection, and a contractor who became unreachable, which is a major red flag that cannot be offset by generic praise in other reviews. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer explicitly questioned whether they were price-gouged during a hurricane emergency, while another noted the quote was within budget, resulting in a below-average score. Experience scores modestly well based on reviewers describing competent repairs across varied tasks including leak detection, gas lines, and water heater installation, but the small sample limits confidence.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One review (2019) describes an abandoned or incomplete job — the contractor allegedly agreed to pass a city inspection, then became unreachable, leaving the customer with open walls. This is a significant project completion failure.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews (2018, undated reviews) are extremely brief and generic with no specific details — phrases like 'These guys are the best!' and 'Great Job' with no elaboration are consistent with low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only one review has a date within the past 12 months (January 2024). Two reviews have no dates at all. Three reviews are from 2016–2019, making the dataset largely outdated and unreliable as a current performance indicator.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 8 reviews total. The WW Score is based on limited data and should be treated with caution. A single negative review has outsized impact on the overall score.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly raised the possibility of price gouging during Hurricane Irma, charging $200 for a task the reviewer estimated should cost under $100. This warrants consumer caution.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool, significant recency gaps, at least one credible report of an abandoned job with a failed inspection, and several suspiciously generic reviews that may not reflect genuine customer experiences.

The review set is deeply mixed, with two strong positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, and thorough workmanship, offset by two serious negative reviews. The 1-star review from 2020 explicitly describes an employee as unprofessional, rude, and incomplete in his work, and raises a concerning allegation about license misuse. The 2019 1-star review describes a pricing dispute where the customer felt overcharged and misled about the scope of work performed. Project completion is a notable concern, as one review explicitly states work was left unfinished for five months due to the company lacking funds for parts. The two positive reviews do reflect genuine punctuality, honest quoting, and completed work, but these are outweighed in severity by the documented failures.

• One review (2020) alleges that an employee named Jose Gamboa uses the company's license number for unauthorized side work — this is a serious legal and professional concern if accurate.
• One review (2019) describes a pricing dispute involving repeated charges for incomplete work, suggesting possible deceptive billing practices.
• One review (2020) explicitly states work was abandoned for 5 months due to the company lacking funds to purchase required parts — a significant project completion failure.
• Three of the five reviews are older than 12 months from a typical current date; only the 2024 and 2023 reviews are recent. The two most negative reviews are from 2019 and 2020, which may reflect past rather than current performance, but cannot be dismissed.
• The two 5-star reviews (2024 and 2023) contain specific details and are likely genuine. The 2017 5-star review also contains specific operational details and appears credible.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews severely limits reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — the sample size of 5 reviews is too small for high confidence, the review set spans 7 years with inconsistent quality signals, and two reviews contain serious allegations about billing practices, incomplete work, and employee conduct that meaningfully drag down trustworthiness.

This contractor has a sharply divided review profile: three positive reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, and clean work, offset by one detailed and highly credible 1-star review describing serious failures across nearly every dimension. The negative review is particularly damaging because it is specific, internally consistent, and documents failures in communication, workmanship, pricing transparency, punctuality, and job completion — the installer left a water heater non-functional after being paid in full. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are relatively light on specifics and cannot outweigh a documented case of incomplete and substandard work. Scores across all dimensions are pulled down significantly by this single but serious complaint, and the small sample size prevents any dimension from achieving high confidence.

• Small sample size of only 4 reviews — scores carry LIMITED overall reliability and should not be treated as definitive.
• The 1-star review (April 2024) is highly detailed and credible, documenting: price bait-and-switch, no-show/late arrival, full voicemail box, non-functional water heater left after paid installation, and lack of basic diagnostic tools (no voltage meter). This single review materially depresses all dimension scores.
• The 5-star review from April 2024 (same month as the 1-star) is somewhat vague and uses generic praise ('incredible,' 'amazing experience') with limited specifics — treat with moderate caution.
• No fake review pattern detected overall, but the April 2024 5-star review lacks the specificity of the other positive reviews and warrants slight skepticism.
• All reviews are from 2024, so recency is not a concern — the negative review is recent and should be weighted fully.
• Language barrier and communication issues flagged in the negative review (non-English-speaking installer, translation through receptionist) represent a systemic operational risk worth noting.

With only 4 reviews and one highly detailed negative account describing multiple serious failures, this WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

Coral Gables Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by repeated complaints of rude staff, broken promises, missed appointments, and dismissive attitudes — though a meaningful number of positive reviews praise courteous and responsive technicians like Brandon, Jose, and Ahmed. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers citing excessive charges, hidden fees, double-billing attempts, and poor value, though a handful of customers found pricing fair or competitive. Project completion is inconsistent: several reviews describe jobs abandoned mid-work, repeated no-shows, and unresolved problems requiring callbacks, while others describe timely and thorough completions. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising technical skill and knowledge while others describe plumbers who lacked basic tools, made mistakes requiring correction, or failed to diagnose problems correctly.

• Several 5-star reviews focus exclusively on the showroom and staff member Abraham/Ibrahim rather than plumbing service work — these may reflect a different business function (retail fixture sales) and could inflate positive sentiment for the service side of the business.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews from 2017 reference the same staff member (Abraham/Ibrahim/Ibraham) with very similar praise language ('knowledgeable, helpful, dependable') — possible review solicitation campaign or coached reviews from that period.
• Review dates span from 2013 to 2024, with the majority concentrated in 2017 and earlier. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2021). The most recent reviews (2021, 2024) are mixed, so recency does not clearly favor either direction, but the score is heavily influenced by older data.
• Multiple 1-star reviews describe systemic operational failures (no-shows, rescheduling, billing disputes, unresolved leaks) suggesting these are not isolated incidents but possible recurring business practices.
• One reviewer explicitly noted they were a condo association that experienced double-billing and pricing changes — this is a serious integrity flag for commercial clients.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews with broad dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews (2013–2024), the potential inflation of positive scores from retail showroom reviews unrelated to plumbing service quality, and a pattern of serious operational complaints that suggest systemic rather than isolated issues.