Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

This contractor exhibits a stark divide between positive and negative customer experiences. Professionalism scores reasonably well (72.5) based on multiple mentions of punctuality, politeness, and courteous staff interactions. However, pricing practices are severely problematic (25.0), with three detailed complaints documenting overbilling, inflated markups (200-300%), excessive labor hour charges, and refusal to issue refunds. Project completion is inconsistent (50.0), with some jobs completed successfully but at least one major failure where diagnostic work was incorrect and no actual service was rendered. Experience ratings are mixed (60.0), with quality workmanship praised in some reviews but serious technical incompetence alleged in others (misdiagnosis of sewer line condition). The company's responsiveness to complaints is poor, with multiple mentions of the owner failing to return calls.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed complaints (3 reviews) documenting systematic overbilling, inflated parts markups, and dishonest billing practices. These are specific, credible allegations with dollar amounts and dates.
• CRITICAL: One review alleges complete diagnostic failure and incompetence—sewer line misdiagnosed as broken when it was in good condition, customer charged for unnecessary work.
• CRITICAL: Owner responsiveness is poor—multiple reviews mention failure to return calls or delayed callbacks (2 months in one case).
• Positive reviews are older (2009-2015) while negative reviews are more recent (2014-2019), suggesting service quality may have declined.
• Positive reviews lack specificity and detail compared to negative reviews, which are highly detailed with specific dollar amounts and dates. This asymmetry suggests negative reviews are more credible.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the stark contrast between generic praise and detailed complaints warrants caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While based on 8 reviews, the data is heavily weighted by serious, detailed complaints about billing fraud and diagnostic incompetence that directly contradict the company's trustworthiness. The WW Score of 54.3 reflects a contractor with inconsistent service quality and significant ethical concerns around pricing and customer service. Prospective customers should prioritize the detailed negative reviews over generic praise.

Stern Brothers Plumbing Supply exhibits a deeply polarized reputation driven primarily by severe professionalism deficits. Across 68 reviews, customers consistently report rude, dismissive, and hostile staff behavior—including verbal abuse, condescension, and disrespect toward both DIYers and professional contractors. While technical knowledge and product availability are acknowledged strengths (18 mentions, score 72), these are severely undermined by pervasive customer service failures. Pricing complaints appear in 22 reviews, with customers reporting markups 2-10x higher than competitors. The absence of project completion data reflects this business model: it is a supply store, not a service contractor. The WW Score of 48.2 reflects a business that possesses expertise but is fundamentally compromised by hostile interpersonal dynamics that drive customers away despite product availability.

• SEVERE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Identical reviews appear 2-4 times each across the dataset (e.g., the 'Stay away from this place!' 1-star review appears twice on 2025-06-02; the 'Are you kidding me?' 5-star review appears twice on 2025-05-26; multiple Spanish-language reviews duplicated; the lengthy 'Cautionary Tale' review appears twice; several other reviews duplicated verbatim). This suggests either review manipulation or data collection errors. Confidence in overall score reduced accordingly.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 5-star and 1-star reviews dominate; very few middle-ground ratings. This bimodal distribution suggests two distinct customer experiences or potential review authenticity issues.
• CONSISTENT PATTERN OF STAFF RUDENESS: Across 68 professionalism mentions, the overwhelming majority (55+) describe rude, dismissive, condescending, or hostile behavior. Named individuals (Michael Stern, Reggie, Howard) appear repeatedly in negative contexts. This is not isolated incidents but systemic cultural pattern.
• GENDER-BASED HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple female customers report feeling harassed, bullied, or disrespected by male staff members, suggesting potential discrimination issues.
• PRICING EXPLOITATION ALLEGATIONS: Customers report being quoted $100+ for parts available elsewhere for $13-40, with accusations of targeting uninformed customers. One review documents $95 overcharge on a single part.
• RETURN POLICY ABUSE: Multiple reviews describe refusal to accept returns or exchanges on defective/incorrect items sold by staff, with staff blaming customers for 'opening boxes' or claiming items were 'dirty.'
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show same negative patterns as older reviews (2009-2023), indicating no improvement over 15+ years of operation.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS REDUCE CONFIDENCE: With significant duplication, the true unique review count is approximately 95-100, not 128. This inflates mention counts and confidence levels artificially.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION due to confirmed review duplication and manipulation patterns, but the underlying finding is highly reliable: Stern Brothers exhibits severe, systemic professionalism failures across a large sample of independent customer accounts spanning 15+ years, despite acknowledged technical expertise and product availability. The business model (supply store vs. service contractor) limits project completion assessment. Recommend independent verification before relying on this score for major decisions.

G&L Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While technical skill and experience are consistently praised (72/100), the company suffers from severe deficiencies in professionalism (48/100) and project completion (45/100). Critical failures include incomplete work with refusal to follow through, aggressive collection tactics, poor diagnostic practices leading to unnecessary work, and unresponsiveness to customer callbacks. Positive reviews highlight quick service and fair pricing in routine jobs, but major projects reveal problematic decision-making, combative owner behavior, and structural failures (septic/drainfield installations). The company's willingness to abandon customers mid-project and pursue legal threats significantly undermines trust.

• SEVERE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2021, 2022) document identical systemic failure—faulty septic/drainfield installations causing $8,000+ failures within 2-4 years. Company refuses warranty responsibility. This suggests either incompetence or negligence in complex work.
• OWNER CONDUCT ISSUE: 2018 review documents owner (Greg Luna) using loud, combative tone, denying prior statements, and pressuring customer into unnecessary $3,000+ service after poor diagnostic work. Tone described as 'insistent and combative.'
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT ABANDONMENT: 2025 review alleges owner Omar collected 80% payment for rough plumbing, then refused to answer calls or complete remaining work (faucets, toilets, water heater). Customer threatening legal action.
• AGGRESSIVE COLLECTIONS: 2019 review documents threatening collections action on invoice dated 10/14/19 when customer intended to pay by 10/31/19 (within standard 30-day terms). Described as unprofessional.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most damaging reviews are recent (2025, 2024, 2022, 2021). Positive reviews cluster in 2015-2019, suggesting possible service quality decline or ownership/management change.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark bifurcation—routine drain cleaning and faucet work rated 5-stars; complex projects (septic, main line diagnostics, large renovations) rated 1-star with serious allegations.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on adequate review volume (18 reviews), the extreme polarization and recent pattern of serious allegations (incomplete work, refusal to complete projects, systemic failures on major installations, aggressive owner behavior) suggest the company's current reliability is significantly lower than the overall score indicates. Recent negative reviews (2024-2025) outweigh older positive reviews in assessing current trustworthiness. Recommend avoiding for complex projects and obtaining detailed written contracts with completion guarantees.

KABI Plumbing shows highly polarized performance across only 3 reviews spanning 5 years. Two reviews (2022, 2017) praise responsiveness, speed, and problem-solving, while one damaging 2020 review documents multiple failed visits, hidden fees, incorrect repairs causing neighbor damage, and requiring a second plumber to fix the work. The severe quality and completion failures in the 2020 review, combined with dishonest pricing practices, significantly outweigh positive feedback. With only 3 reviews total and conflicting evidence, confidence in any dimension is limited.

• CRITICAL: One review (2020) documents serious failures—4 visits for simple repair, wrong gasket installation, damage to neighbor's apartment, and hidden $65 parking fee. This suggests systemic quality and honesty issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2022 and 2017; the most detailed negative review is from 2020. Unclear if issues were resolved.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total—insufficient for reliable scoring. First review (2022) shows generic praise with repetitive language ('aaa100%+++', 'absolutely perfect', '100%') and lacks specific detail, raising minor authenticity concerns.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Hidden fees ($65 offsite parking) explicitly mentioned as dishonest—suggests lack of transparency.
• COMPLETION FAILURE: 4 visits required for simple leak; wrong part installed; required external plumber to fix correctly. This is a major red flag.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to only 3 reviews, high polarization, and a 5-year span with conflicting evidence; the documented completion and pricing failures in the 2020 review are serious concerns that cannot be ignored despite positive feedback in other reviews.

This contractor's review set is heavily weighted toward negative experiences, with 7 of 11 reviews being 1–2 stars. Professionalism is the most frequently cited concern, with multiple reviewers describing rude staff, broken appointments with no advance notice, poor follow-through on callbacks, and dismissive customer service — though a small number of positive reviews do praise specific technicians like Junior and Mike. Pricing drew significant criticism, including a bait-and-switch quote that jumped from $970 to $4,400, charges of $500 for an unresolved problem, and one reviewer noting a competitor quoted half the price for the same job. Project completion is similarly troubled, with at least three reviews describing work that was either not completed, abandoned, or followed by unresolved property damage. The few positive reviews do demonstrate genuine technical competence and thoroughness when jobs go well, which prevents the experience score from bottoming out entirely.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from January 2021, and the majority cluster between 2014–2020. Recency weighting reduces confidence in current performance.
• No suspected fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in detail, tone, rating, and specifics, suggesting authentic authorship.
• Bait-and-switch pricing concern flagged: one reviewer reports a quote that increased from $970 to $4,400 after initial diagnosis, with another plumber quoting $2,500 for the same job.
• Property damage follow-up failure flagged: one reviewer describes two large holes left in their yard after a truck got stuck, with repeated calls over months resulting in no repair and no resolution.
• Dishonesty allegation flagged: one reviewer explicitly accuses the company of lying about a purchase date and falsifying an employee signature in a refund dispute.
• No-show / last-minute cancellation flagged: one reviewer describes a job scheduled six days in advance being cancelled the day of, with no proactive notification from the company.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning approximately seven years, with HIGH confidence on all four dimensions due to mention volume, but the score should be treated with moderate overall trust given the age of most reviews and the absence of any data from the past 12 months.

This contractor shows extreme polarization across reviews with no middle ground. Two reviews (2023-12-07 and 2022-07-28) praise professionalism, quality work, fair pricing, and expertise, while one recent review (2023-08-12) reports complete project abandonment after payment and unprofessional behavior. The critical failure in project completion—refusing to finish work after being paid—is a severe red flag that significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. With only 3 reviews and conflicting evidence, confidence in this score is limited.

• CRITICAL: One review explicitly reports job abandonment after payment received (2023-08-12). This is a severe breach of project completion and suggests potential reliability issues.
• Extreme polarization: Two 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star review with no moderate ratings. This pattern warrants caution.
• Recency concern: The most recent review (2023-08-12) is the most negative, suggesting possible deterioration in service quality.
• Small sample size: Only 3 reviews limits statistical reliability. Additional recent reviews needed.
• Language diversity: One review in Spanish; no indication of translation accuracy affecting interpretation.

This score should be treated with significant caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews), extreme polarization, and a recent critical failure in project completion that directly contradicts positive historical reviews. Do not rely on this score for high-stakes decisions without additional recent evidence.