Find Nearby Plumbers In Miami, Florida

Hernandez Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual, courteous technicians who communicate clearly and explain work thoroughly. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and follow-up callbacks honored. Technical expertise is evident across complex repairs and installations. However, pricing is a significant weakness—numerous reviews cite excessive charges, inflated quotes, surprise cost increases, and fees perceived as exploitative, particularly for diagnostic work and jobs targeting homeowners unfamiliar with plumbing. This pricing concern substantially reduces the overall WW Score despite otherwise strong performance dimensions.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 12 reviews explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, inflated, or dishonest. Examples include: $425 leak-finder fee for 15-minute diagnosis, quotes increasing from $1000→$1500→$3600 for same job, $591 garbage disposal quote (competitor charged $300), $330 for two angle stop valves, and $20K+ total charges for work another plumber quoted at $6K. This pattern is consistent and credible, not isolated complaints.
• QUOTE INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews report being quoted different prices for identical work depending on circumstances (e.g., $350 quote vs. $1200 for same toilet repair; different quotes on different days). This suggests pricing may not be standardized or transparent.
• ASSESSMENT FEE CONTROVERSY: Several reviews mention $150 assessment fees that are supposedly credited but customers report confusion about whether credit applies if work is not performed, and quotes sent after payment without explanation of price changes.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews mention jobs not completed as promised or requiring callbacks to finish work (re-pipe job abandoned, P-trap not fully fixed, main drain work delayed beyond agreed timeline).
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews report difficulty reaching the company by phone, missed callbacks, and poor dispatcher communication despite otherwise good technician performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) show continued pricing complaints and strong professionalism. Older reviews (2009-2014) are uniformly positive with no pricing complaints, suggesting pricing practices may have changed or become more aggressive over time.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many reviews are positive, they contain specific details (technician names, problem descriptions, timestamps), varied writing styles, and include both 5-star and critical reviews. No obvious patterns of identical phrasing or suspiciously generic praise detected. However, the concentration of 5-star reviews in recent months (May-June 2025) with similar positive language warrants mild caution.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 150 reviews with strong data across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with excellent professionalism and technical competence but significantly undermined by consistent, credible, and well-documented pricing concerns that affect customer value perception and overall trustworthiness. The HIGH confidence rating is justified by the volume of mentions (5+ per dimension) and the consistency of complaints across multiple review periods.

Fort Lauderdale Plumber demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians (particularly Tim and Andrew). Project completion is generally solid with most jobs finished as promised, though a few callbacks and incomplete work issues were noted. Technical expertise is evident across most reviews with skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness—numerous reviews explicitly cite excessive charges, with multiple customers reporting rates 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. This pricing concern substantially impacts the overall score despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly state prices are exorbitant, with specific complaints of 2-4x markup compared to competitors. This is the most consistent negative pattern across the dataset.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER REVIEWS: Four 1-star reviews describe serious issues including water damage from incomplete repairs, aggressive owner behavior, overcharging for simple jobs, and no-show appointments. These are substantive complaints with specific details, not generic criticism.
• RECENT POSITIVE REVIEWS HEAVILY SKEWED: Reviews from 2025 (past 6 months) are almost entirely 5-star with generic praise and minimal specifics (e.g., empty review text, repetitive phrasing like 'amazing job,' 'highly recommend'). This pattern suggests possible review manipulation or incentivized reviews. Older reviews (2015-2020) show more balanced detail and credibility.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Some reviews praise Tim/Andrew as exceptional, while others describe the same company as dishonest and overpriced. This suggests either highly variable technician quality or selective service delivery.
• FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Several reviews mention promised follow-ups that never materialized (quotes not sent, callbacks not made, no-show appointments), indicating potential operational reliability problems.
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 2025 reviews (n=21) are 100% five-star with minimal detail. 2024 reviews (n=6) are 100% five-star. Pre-2024 reviews show 8 one-star and 2 two-star ratings among 73 reviews. This dramatic shift suggests recent review quality degradation or manipulation.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill (supported by 60+ detailed reviews), the recent flood of generic 5-star reviews and the consistent, specific pricing complaints across multiple time periods significantly undermine confidence. The pricing dimension alone (68.0) is dragged down by explicit, detailed complaints of overcharging; this is not speculation but documented customer experience. Prospective customers should expect strong workmanship and responsiveness but should obtain multiple quotes and negotiate aggressively on pricing before engaging this contractor.

Just 1 Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, politeness, and skill level across 78 and 52 mentions respectively. However, the company shows significant vulnerability in project completion reliability, with multiple documented instances of no-shows, abandoned work, failure to follow up, and unresolved issues—pulling this critical dimension to 72. Pricing feedback is mixed but generally favorable (78), though some customers report higher costs than competitors. The stark contrast between the majority of 5-star reviews praising individual technicians (particularly Javier, David, and Angel) and several 1-star reviews citing serious operational failures suggests inconsistent service delivery and potential management/scheduling issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple documented no-show incidents (2025-04-10, 2024-05-01, 2022-10-11, 2021-04-02) indicate systemic scheduling or communication failures. These are not isolated complaints.
• CRITICAL: Project abandonment and failure to follow up documented in multiple reviews (2025-04-10 shower repair never completed; 2022-07-15 leak test done incorrectly with no callback; 2020-10-12 technician disappeared mid-job). This directly contradicts the 'project completion' dimension.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Approximately 60+ reviews contain nearly identical praise structure ('Javier was amazing/great/best', 'fast service', 'professional', 'on time', 'reasonable price') with minimal specific detail. Many reviews from 2025-01-10, 2025-02-09, and 2024-06-09 use nearly identical language. This suggests possible review manipulation or template-based responses.
• SUSPICIOUS: Multiple blank reviews with 5-star ratings (2024-12-11, 2024-10-12, 2024-06-09, 2023-06-10) provide zero information and inflate apparent satisfaction.
• SUSPICIOUS: Duplicate review detected (2023-06-10 and 2023-03-11 water heater replacement review appears twice with identical text).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews cluster in 2020-2024 period. Recent reviews (2025-04-10) show severe operational failures, suggesting possible decline in service quality or management changes.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One customer (2023-03-09) reported being quoted $600 higher than competitors and $300 higher than Lowe's for water heater replacement, contradicting the 'fair pricing' narrative in other reviews.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2024-06-09) alleges dangerous driving by company vehicle that 'could have killed somebody,' though reviewer acknowledges they cannot speak to service quality.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While the HIGH confidence reflects substantial mention counts, the data quality is compromised by apparent review manipulation (repetitive language, template-like praise, blank 5-star reviews), and the score masks a critical operational vulnerability: documented project abandonment, no-shows, and failure to follow up on callbacks. The company's professionalism and technical skill are genuine and well-evidenced, but project completion reliability is significantly compromised. Prospective customers should weight recent negative experiences (2025) heavily and request written guarantees regarding follow-up and completion timelines.

Dovis Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship across the majority of reviews. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting substantially higher costs than competitors and feeling overcharged. Project completion shows mixed results—while most jobs are finished satisfactorily, several reviews document incomplete work, extended delays, and unresolved callbacks that damaged customer relationships. The company's performance is highly inconsistent, with exceptional service in some cases contrasting sharply with serious failures in follow-through and accountability.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 7) explicitly cite pricing as excessive, unfair, or significantly higher than competitors. Examples include $381.89 vs. $240-250 market rate for toilet repair, $1000 for 3 hours of work, and $3900 quote with undisclosed additional $600 charge. This pattern suggests potential pricing opacity or aggressive upselling.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 5 reviews document serious project completion issues including: incomplete work (PVC gap not fixed despite $4300 quote), 3-month delay with exposed foundation, no-show appointments, work abandoned mid-project, and failure to return for promised callbacks. One customer waited 3+ months for owner callback.
• INCONSISTENT MANAGEMENT: Multiple reviews reference 'David' (owner/manager) negatively regarding unprofessionalism, lack of follow-through, and dismissive attitude toward customer concerns. This suggests management-level accountability issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: One reviewer (2015-04-01) explicitly notes suspicion about the high volume of 5-star reviews and questions legitimacy. Another reviewer (2014-12-30) directly accuses reviews of being fake. While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the concentration of 5-star ratings (approximately 70 of 80) warrants caution.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2014-2018 (older than 6 years). Only 8-10 reviews are from 2023-2024. Recent reviews show mixed quality, suggesting possible service degradation or inconsistency over time.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document poor responsiveness including unanswered phone calls, no voicemail, failure to call back as promised, and delayed responses to inquiries.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the sample size is substantial (80 reviews) and professionalism/experience scores are well-supported, the pricing dimension is based on only 28 mentions and shows clear evidence of customer dissatisfaction. The significant gap between positive and negative reviews, combined with documented project completion failures and management accountability issues, suggests the company's actual reliability is lower than the overall score indicates. Customers should obtain multiple competitive quotes before engaging and clarify all scope and pricing in writing.

General Plumbing demonstrates solid competency across all dimensions, with particular strength in technical experience and pricing fairness. However, the company exhibits significant inconsistency in professionalism and customer service delivery. While many reviews praise punctuality, cleanliness, and knowledgeable technicians (particularly Miguel and Jim), multiple recent reviews document serious professionalism failures including rudeness, disrespect, refusal to take responsibility for errors, and poor communication. Project completion is generally reliable, though one critical failure involved leaving debris that damaged customer property. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects a company with strong fundamentals undermined by recurring interpersonal and accountability issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple recent reviews (2024, 2020, 2017, 2016, 2013) document severe professionalism failures including rudeness, hanging up on customers, refusing responsibility for damage, and disrespectful behavior. These are not isolated incidents but a pattern.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERN: Review from 2024-03-22 describes a flange left inside toilet during installation that caused damage and required customer to pay for another plumber's service. Company refused responsibility.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (often 5-star with detailed praise) and highly negative reviews (1-star with specific complaints). This suggests either significant variation in technician quality or potential selection bias in review submission.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite language barriers and phone rudeness (2016-06-11, 2020-03-19), suggesting potential training gaps in customer service protocols.
• PRICING DISCREPANCY: One review (2011-05-24) documented overcharging relative to phone quote, though company did issue refund after complaint.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Three reviews contain no text or only 'unknown' (2024-10-12, 2016-03-01, 2015-04-16), limiting data quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most highly positive reviews are from 2015-2022. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show more negative patterns, suggesting possible service degradation or management changes.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score is based on substantial mention counts (28+ per dimension), the data exhibits extreme polarity and recent deterioration in professionalism that suggests the company's current reliability may be lower than the historical average indicates. Customers should prioritize recent reviews and request specific technician assignments if proceeding.

Mohr Plumbing has a strong overall track record built on a large volume of reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide variety of jobs. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and covering ghosting behavior, unresolved callbacks, a damaging spill left unaddressed, a disputed inspection charge, and rude communication — prevents a high score and reveals a pattern of inconsistent follow-through and customer service failures. The project completion dimension is notably penalized because several reviewers explicitly reported abandoned callbacks, no-shows, and jobs that required re-service without warranty support. Pricing scores well overall, with many reviewers citing fair and competitive rates, though one reviewer was surprised by an unquoted bill. Experience scores positively, with multiple reviewers noting Juan's diagnostic skill and ability to solve problems others could not, though a few reviews suggest limitations in complex leak detection.

• GHOSTING PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviews (2023-07-18, 2023-03-16, 2021-04-08, 2021-09-03 update) explicitly describe Juan failing to respond to follow-up calls or messages after initial contact or completed work. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE UNRESOLVED: One reviewer (2024-02-25) reports permanent floor damage across 5 rooms caused during a job, with Juan initially promising to return but then going silent. This is a serious unresolved complaint.
• NO WARRANTY HONORED: One reviewer (2024-02-19) reports being charged again for the same clog issue within weeks, with no warranty or callback offered. Another reviewer (2023-02-18) reports no follow-up on a part order and an unquoted surprise bill.
• RUDE COMMUNICATION: One reviewer (2021-09-03) documents hostile follow-up messages from Juan after leaving a negative review, which is a professionalism concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative reviews are concentrated in 2021–2024, suggesting a possible decline in service consistency over time compared to the largely positive reviews from 2019–2020.
• VOLUME SKEW: The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star with limited detail, which is typical of satisfied customers who leave brief praise. The negative reviews tend to be more detailed and specific, lending them additional credibility.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: While many positive reviews are brief, they vary sufficiently in language, job type, and detail to not raise strong fake review concerns. No flagging warranted on this basis.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over five years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of ghosting, unresolved complaints, and inconsistent follow-through that meaningfully offsets the contractor's otherwise strong responsiveness and workmanship reputation.