Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

ACE Plumbing, Heating and Air draws an overwhelmingly positive picture across a large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising specific technicians by name — particularly Aaron, Chappy, Gerry, Ryan, Manuel, Everett, Martin, Josh, and others — for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Project completion scores are strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, often under emergency conditions. Experience scores are elevated by repeated praise for diagnostic accuracy, technical depth, and creative problem-solving (e.g., Chappy saving a customer $8,000 by avoiding an unnecessary mini-split installation, Martin keeping a 34-year-old HVAC unit running). Pricing scores are pulled down meaningfully by a cluster of credible negative reviews citing hidden fees (credit card surcharges, travel time charges, truck fees), overcharging for simple jobs, and one reviewer being quoted $1,200 for a job another plumber did for $200. Professionalism is also modestly penalized by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing rude staff, no-shows, failure to honor warranties, and at least one technician (Mike/Mohammad) accused of fraud and non-refund — these are serious flags that prevent a higher score despite the dominant positive signal.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are near-identical in wording and posted on consecutive dates (June 6-8 and June 5-7, 2025). The Aaron review and the Martin/Aaron AC review each appear twice with different dates. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding and reduces confidence in the most recent review cluster.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A review posted by the company owner (Max Greenberg) praising his own technician Chappy is included in the dataset. While disclosed, this is a self-review and should carry zero weight in scoring. It has been excluded from scoring calculations.
• HIDDEN FEES / PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple credible negative reviews cite undisclosed fees including a 5% credit card surcharge, a $30 travel time charge, and a $10 truck fee not disclosed at booking. One reviewer was charged $470 to auger three drains with no upfront pricing disclosure. These are material pricing integrity concerns.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (Feb 2024) names a specific technician 'Mike (Mohammad Alzawahreh)' and alleges payment was taken via Venmo for unresolved work, refund requests were ignored, and calls were evaded. This is a fraud allegation and significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews across different time periods allege that ACE failed to honor stated warranties — including a lifetime water heater guarantee, a 30-day drain warranty dispute, and a callback that was never honored after a no-show emergency call.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, including one emergency no-call no-show and one technician who broke drywall and left without completing the job.
• RUDE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple reviews spanning 2018–2024 describe rude, dismissive, or hostile interactions with staff — including hang-ups, refusal to let customers speak, and disrespectful treatment of elderly customers. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2011 to June 2025. Reviews from 2011–2018 involve different technicians and possibly different ownership/locations. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily positive and dominate the dataset, but the negative reviews from this period (hidden fees, rude manager Scott, no-show) are credible and have been weighted accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic areas including Sacramento CA, Bullhead City AZ, Toledo OH, Baltimore MD, Diamond Bar CA, Evansville IN, and others. It is likely that this dataset aggregates reviews for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Ace Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a single-contractor assessment is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple geographically distinct and likely unrelated 'Ace Plumbing' businesses have been aggregated together — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local ACE Plumbing branch before making a hiring decision.

Diamond Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across 89 mentions, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, communication, and respectful behavior. Project completion is solid (81.5/100) across 52 mentions, though a critical 1-star review from 2021 regarding incomplete excavation work (unfilled hole under bathtub) and a few no-show incidents temper this score. Experience/workmanship scores well (85.0/100) with 48 mentions highlighting technical skill and quality work. Pricing presents the weakest dimension (76.0/100) with only 18 mentions—while many reviews praise fair pricing, several negative reviews cite unexpectedly high costs, aggressive upselling tactics, and pricing significantly above competitors, creating meaningful concern about value consistency.

• CRITICAL: One severe project completion failure (2021-09-07, 1-star): excavation work left a hollow void under bathtub after digging; company refused to complete backfill despite contract language, creating structural hazard. This is a material breach of contract and safety issue.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2020-12-10, 2-star; undated review, 1-star) report pricing substantially above market—one water heater install quoted at $1,200 when competitors were significantly lower. Another review warns of aggressive upselling and payment plans for simple repairs.
• SERVICE RELIABILITY: Two 1-star reviews (2021-04-09, 2014-08-25) document no-shows and failure to return calls, leaving customers waiting days without communication.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15 reviews (mostly dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-06-02) are extremely brief, generic, or empty (blank text with 5-star rating). Examples: empty review text, single-word reviews ('Toilet repair'), minimal detail. This cluster of suspiciously generic praise with no specifics raises authenticity concerns, though the majority of reviews contain substantive detail.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, past 6 months) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2020-2021) contain more critical feedback and specificity. Recent data may be skewed toward positive sentiment.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: One review (undated, 1-star) alleges the company attempted to exploit an insurance inspection request by refusing to provide the requested inspection and instead pushing a full pipe replacement upsell.

This WW Score of 82.1 is moderately reliable but should be interpreted with caution: professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by high-mention counts, but pricing reliability is limited (only 18 mentions) and shows material inconsistency. The cluster of generic/empty recent reviews and documented service failures (no-shows, incomplete work, upselling) suggest the company's consistency has declined or quality varies significantly by technician. Customers should verify pricing independently and confirm service completion terms in writing before engaging.

Sunshine Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and technical experience. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship, as evidenced by numerous mentions of on-time arrivals, responsive staff (especially Carmen), and knowledgeable technicians like Robert, Eric, and Colton. Pricing is consistently described as fair and transparent, though fewer reviews explicitly address this dimension. Project completion is generally reliable, though a small number of negative reviews indicate occasional follow-up failures and no-shows. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a trustworthy contractor with proven capability, tempered by a meaningful minority of service failures that prevent a higher rating.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from 2024-06-09 with identical or near-identical 5-star ratings and minimal detail suggest potential clustering or review manipulation on that date. However, substantive positive reviews from other dates corroborate the quality claims.
• CRITICAL ISSUE: Three separate 1-star reviews document serious failures: (1) Misdiagnosis and refusal to respond to refund request (later resolved); (2) No-show after scheduled appointment with no callback; (3) No-show on emergency clogged pipe/sewage backup, forcing customer to hotel and incurring additional costs. These are not isolated complaints.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One 1-star review from a realtor describes office manager speaking over customer and being dismissive of complaint, damaging business referral relationship.
• ATTITUDE ISSUE: One 1-star review alleges disrespectful treatment by owner and staff based on customer gender, and mentions an employee with consistently poor attitude.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings), reducing data quality slightly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2024 (recent) and 2023-2014 (older). Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly positive, but negative reviews span multiple years, suggesting systemic issues rather than recent improvement.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and should be trusted as a fair assessment. The score is based on 68 substantive reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, providing strong statistical confidence. However, the presence of multiple documented service failures (no-shows, misdiagnosis, poor communication) and attitude complaints indicates this is a company with inconsistent execution—excellent when things go right, but capable of serious lapses that harm customers. Prospective customers should expect good service most of the time but should have contingency plans for potential no-shows or communication breakdowns.

Morata/Motz Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, responsiveness to emergencies, and quality of workmanship spanning multiple years of reviews. Professionalism is the most frequently cited dimension, with dozens of reviewers noting on-time arrivals, friendly attitudes, and proactive communication such as technician photo previews and text updates throughout jobs. Pricing scores slightly lower due to one explicit negative review accusing the company of price-gouging under urgent circumstances, which tempers an otherwise positive pricing narrative. Project completion scores well, with multiple reviewers confirming same-day completions, emergency resolutions, and no reports of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience scores are supported by specific technical callouts including complex water heater installs, long-line snaking, and problem-solving around non-standard plumbing configurations.

• 11 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews dated 2025-05-10 appear in a cluster with very short or generic text (e.g., 'PROFESSIONAL', 'Great work as always', blank entries). This pattern may suggest a coordinated review push and warrants mild skepticism.
• Two reviews dated 2025-05-19 are nearly identical in phrasing ('Very good service, highly recommend.' and 'Very good service, highly recommended!'). These are likely duplicate or fake reviews and were treated as a single data point.
• There is a notable split between older reviews (2017–2023) referencing 'Lee Motz / Motz Plumbing' and newer reviews (2025) referencing 'Morata Plumbing' and technicians named Omelio and Jesus. This may indicate a business name change, ownership transition, or merged review profile. Scores reflect the combined record but this discrepancy should be noted.
• One 1-star review (2025-05-12) explicitly accuses staff and ownership of being disorganized and inflating prices under urgency. This is the only negative review and was factored into pricing and professionalism scores.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews are from within the past 12 months (2025), which is a positive signal for current service quality. Older reviews (2017–2021) are consistent in tone but were given slightly reduced weight per recency rules.

This WW Score is moderately reliable overall — the volume of reviews is sufficient and recent, but confidence is reduced by a cluster of blank and near-duplicate reviews, a possible business identity split between two company names, and a single but credible negative review regarding pricing practices.

Environmental Plumbing Services demonstrates strong professionalism across communication, punctuality, and courtesy, with 38 reviews explicitly praising these qualities. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though fewer reviews address this dimension. Project completion shows a notable weakness: while most jobs are completed, two significant reviews document serious follow-through failures (abandoned fireplace repair in 2018, unresponsive callbacks in 2005), and one review mentions responsiveness concerns. Technical experience is solid, with multiple reviews highlighting problem-solving ability and knowledge. The company's age (reviews span 2002–2021) and volume of positive feedback suggest reliability, but recent completion issues and older data reduce overall confidence.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 4 reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5-star ratings (2015-12-08, 2015-11-23, 2015-07-20, 2015-02-19, 2002-10-21). These provide no usable data and suggest possible review manipulation. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• CRITICAL PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUE: Review dated 2018-11-29 (1-star) documents a fireplace repair abandoned 2 years prior with no callback. Review dated 2005-11-05 (2-star) reports 48+ hours without callback after installation problem. These are serious red flags for follow-through.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of reviews are from 2002–2014 (15+ years old). Only 3 reviews from 2018 or later. Recent data is sparse, limiting confidence in current performance.
• RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: Review dated 2007-11-30 (2-star) explicitly states concern with 'overall responsiveness' as reason for not hiring. This contradicts the dominant narrative of prompt callbacks in older reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: professionalism is well-documented and strong, but project completion has documented failures, pricing data is limited, and most reviews are 10+ years old with sparse recent validation. The fake reviews and responsiveness inconsistencies further reduce confidence in the overall reliability of this score.

Handyman Service R&S demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, communication, and work ethic across 13 reviews. Pricing is a clear strength, with 9 reviews explicitly noting fair, competitive, and transparent pricing. Project completion shows solid performance with timely work and follow-through, though one significant 1-star review from January 2024 documents a serious scheduling failure and no-show that substantially impacts this dimension. Technical experience is well-documented across plumbing, electrical, and general handyman work with high-quality results. The January 2024 failure is a material concern that prevents a higher overall score despite otherwise excellent feedback.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2024-01-19) documents a severe project completion failure—rescheduled appointment, no communication after Wednesday, and customer obtained service elsewhere at half the price. This is a significant red flag for reliability despite 15 other positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 13 of 16 reviews are from 2022-2023; only 3 reviews from 2024. The most recent negative review suggests potential recent service degradation.
• PATTERN NOTE: 14 of 16 reviews are 5-star ratings with generally positive language, but reviews contain specific details (faucet replacement, garbage disposal, drywall work, AC troubleshooting) that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews. The one 1-star review provides specific, credible complaint details.
• CONFIDENCE CAVEAT: While dimension scores are HIGH confidence based on mention counts, the overall WW Score reliability is tempered by the documented January 2024 failure and limited recent review volume.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with cautious optimism: strong historical performance across professionalism, pricing, and experience is undermined by a documented recent scheduling/communication failure in January 2024 that directly contradicts reliability claims, suggesting potential operational inconsistency that warrants direct inquiry before engagement.