Find Nearby Plumbers In Orlando, Florida

ServiceMaster Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant polarization in customer experiences. Professionalism scores moderately at 68, driven by numerous complaints about rudeness, unprofessional behavior, and poor communication, though some technicians (Matthew, Xavier, Chris, Tony, Jose) received consistent praise. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 55, with recurring complaints about undisclosed fees, surprise charges, aggressive collection tactics including lien threats, and charges for diagnostic work that yielded no resolution. Project completion at 64 reflects incomplete jobs, abandoned work, and failure to follow through on callbacks. Experience at 72 is the strongest area, with skilled technicians praised for problem-solving ability, though offset by multiple instances of incompetent diagnosis and unsafe work (gas leaks, electrical hazards). The company's pattern of threatening liens and aggressive debt collection significantly undermines trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) document threats of liens on homes for disputed charges, aggressive collection tactics, and harassment via phone calls and home visits. This pattern suggests systemic business practice issues beyond service quality.
• SAFETY CONCERN: At least 3 reviews document serious safety failures including gas leaks left undetected/unfixed, electrical hazards that damaged homes, and incorrect installations of safety-critical components.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Systematic pattern of undisclosed service fees ($105-$200), charges for diagnostic work with no resolution, and significant price increases after work completion. Multiple customers report being charged despite no work performed or incomplete work.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Extreme variance in technician performance. Named technicians (Matthew, Xavier, Chris, Tony, Jose, James, Malcolm, Monte, Anibal) consistently praised, while unnamed or other technicians frequently criticized. Suggests training or quality control issues.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple reviews document failure to return calls/emails, missed appointments without notice, and poor follow-up on permits and callbacks.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews from 2025 and 2024 are extremely generic with identical phrasing ('Highly recommend,' 'very professional,' 'great experience') and lack specific details. Two reviews appear to be from medical facilities (doctor/nurse references) and are clearly misplaced. Two reviews have no text content. These suggest possible review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2017-2023, while recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star. This temporal clustering warrants caution about recent score inflation.
• BBB ACCREDITATION: One review explicitly notes company is not BBB accredited, suggesting regulatory or complaint history.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence and caution. While based on 73 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions, the extreme polarization (many 5-star vs. many 1-star), documented safety failures, systematic pricing complaints, aggressive collection practices, and suspected review manipulation significantly undermine reliability. The company appears to have inconsistent quality dependent on technician assignment, serious business practice concerns around billing and collections, and potential safety issues. Prospective customers should independently verify current practices and request specific technician assignment if proceeding.

Choice Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant strengths in technical expertise and experience (78/100) and reasonable professionalism (72/100), but critical weaknesses in pricing transparency and fairness (45/100) and project completion reliability (68/100). The company demonstrates skilled technicians (Javier, Alfredo, Brice, Rick, Johnny, Alex) who are often courteous and knowledgeable, with multiple 5-star reviews praising their work quality and customer service. However, the company is heavily criticized for non-transparent pricing, excessive charges for routine work, failure to complete jobs properly on first visit, and poor follow-up on warranty claims. Pricing complaints are consistent across multiple reviews (estimates not provided upfront, charges of $225-$660 for work that competitors charge significantly less for, undisclosed fees). Project completion issues include incomplete diagnostics, jobs requiring multiple callbacks, and unresolved problems within days of service.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic complaints about high pricing and lack of transparency across 15 reviews spanning 2008-2021. Multiple reviews cite charges 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work (e.g., $225 vs $125 for toilet reinstall, $250-$300 for drain clearing vs cheaper alternatives).
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks (unclogging that failed within days, water heater installation requiring second visit, trash compactor replaced 4+ times). One review explicitly states job was not completed despite payment.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Several reviews cite poor communication (no-shows, late arrivals without notification, technician called wrong customer, office staff hung up on customer, contradictory statements about fees).
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (mostly 5-star with specific praise for named technicians) and highly negative reviews (1-star with detailed complaints). This suggests quality varies significantly by technician or circumstances.
• WARRANTY COMPANY FRICTION: Multiple reviews indicate problems when working through home warranty companies (AHS, American Home Shield), with complaints about unapproved charges, permit fee overcharges ($225 vs $65 actual), and blame-shifting.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2014-2020 (older), while some positive reviews are from 2021. However, negative reviews span entire timeline, suggesting persistent issues rather than past problems.
• CREDIBILITY ISSUE: One 2014 review alleges company misrepresented warranty coverage to customer and then lied to warranty company about customer behavior. Another 2015 review documents office staff (Jill) being rude and refusing callbacks after company error.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: while the score reflects genuine data from 35 reviews with consistent mention patterns across all dimensions, the company exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with excellent technical skills undermined by serious pricing, transparency, and follow-through issues that create substantial financial and service risk for customers, particularly those using home warranty coverage.

Fahrenheit Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2012–2020. Professionalism is the primary weakness, with multiple detailed complaints about rude dispatchers, poor customer service, and unprofessional behavior from staff. Pricing concerns emerge in several reviews, with customers reporting unexpected fees, lack of transparency on hourly rates, and pressure to pay for unnecessary services. Project completion is mixed—some jobs were finished promptly and well, while others involved missed appointments, no-shows, and incomplete follow-through. Technical experience appears solid when work is actually performed, but diagnostic recommendations have been questioned. The company's oldest reviews (2012–2015) are more positive; recent reviews (2016–2020) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has declined or customer expectations have shifted.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2016–2020) are significantly more negative than older reviews (2012–2015). This suggests either service degradation or increasing customer dissatisfaction over time.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews cite rude, dismissive, or hostile behavior from dispatchers and office staff (Tina, Yolanda, receptionist). One detailed review documents a dispatcher telling a customer 'you are the only causing trouble' and hanging up.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Several reviews report unwillingness to quote hourly rates over phone, surprise fees, and pressure to pay for expensive diagnostic services (e.g., $625 leak detection) that other plumbers later found unnecessary.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: One review mentions the company has 'tons of lawsuits against them' per public record research. This warrants independent verification.
• INVALID CONTACT: First review indicates the listed phone number (407-459-7902) routes to Oceanic Cruises, not Fahrenheit Plumbing. This is a critical operational failure.
• INCOMPLETE SERVICE: Multiple reviews document jobs left unfinished, missed appointments, and no-shows despite scheduled service windows.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While based on 11 reviews with moderate mention counts across dimensions, the company exhibits a clear negative trend in recent years, serious professionalism issues documented across multiple independent sources, and potential systemic problems with pricing transparency and customer respect. The score of 62.8 reflects genuine quality concerns, not data scarcity, and customers should independently verify current service standards before engaging.

AquaFi presents a mixed picture across its reviews. Professionalism is mentioned in all five reviews, with most customers praising courteous and friendly technicians, but one detailed negative review significantly drags the score down due to a 4-hour delayed callback and a dismissive office response. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: the negative review describes a botched AC service that left the home at 80+ degrees, a failure to reconnect components properly, and an AC still underperforming days later — serious execution failures that cannot be ignored. Pricing receives moderate marks; one reviewer praised affordability and competitive quotes, while the negative reviewer felt charged unfairly for a company-caused error. Experience scores conservatively given the technical failure described in the 1-star review, offset by positive mentions of knowledgeable and expert installers in other reviews. The review base is very small and spans from 2016 to 2020, limiting reliability.

• Very small review set (5 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Review dates span 2016 to 2020; the most recent review is from November 2020, meaning ALL reviews are more than 3 years old. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• Three of the four positive reviews are notably generic in their praise (e.g., 'exceeded expectations,' 'gold standard,' 'professional and knowledgeable') with limited specific detail, which warrants mild fake review caution — though not conclusive given the small sample.
• The 1-star review is highly detailed and specific (dates, temperatures, billing dispute, follow-up failure), lending it strong credibility and significant weight despite being a single review.
• The negative review describes a potential pattern of billing misconduct — charging full price after a technician-caused service failure — which is a serious consumer concern that warrants flagging.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the extremely small review sample (5 reviews), the age of all reviews (none more recent than 2020), and the outsized influence of a single highly credible negative review against a backdrop of moderately detailed positive reviews.

Biasi Plumbing has a mixed but generally positive track record across a small review set. Three of the five reviews are older than eight years, significantly limiting their reliability as indicators of current performance. Pricing and workmanship are praised in multiple reviews, with one reviewer explicitly noting Peter charged half the price of a competitor for superior results. However, a serious 1-star review from 2018 describes a permit compliance failure — the company pulled a permit but allegedly refused to provide license and insurance information to the city, preventing a final inspection — which is a significant red flag that materially drags down the project completion score. The remaining positive reviews are genuine in tone with specific details, suggesting they are likely authentic.

• SERIOUS COMPLIANCE FLAG: One review (2018) alleges Biasi Plumbing pulled a permit but refused to provide license and insurance documentation to the city, resulting in an inability to obtain a final inspection. This is a significant legal and professional concern that directly impacts the project completion score.
• RECENCY WARNING: Three of five reviews are from 2014–2015, making them 9–10 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023). The score should be treated with caution as it may not reflect current business practices.
• LOW SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score is based on very limited data and should not be considered statistically reliable.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include a negative review, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (5 reviews), a majority of reviews being over 8 years old, and one serious unresolved compliance allegation that cannot be verified but cannot be ignored.

Julian Plumbing shows mixed performance across reviews spanning over a decade. One highly detailed 2021 review praises exceptional customer service, fair pricing, and responsiveness, while a 2013 review documents serious project abandonment and failure to communicate after initial assessment. Professionalism scores are pulled down by the documented non-responsiveness and lack of follow-through in the 2013 case, despite positive interpersonal comments in other reviews. Pricing appears reasonable based on explicit mentions, and technical skill is evident where work was completed. The significant time gap between reviews and conflicting experiences create substantial uncertainty.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent substantive review is from 2021; oldest negative review is from 2013 (11 years old). Business practices may have changed significantly.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: One review documents complete project abandonment and non-responsiveness; another praises excellent service. These are fundamentally incompatible experiences suggesting either significant business changes or inconsistent service delivery.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEW: One review contains only 'unknown' with a 2-star rating (2015), providing no usable data.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 usable reviews across 12+ years provides insufficient data for reliable scoring. Recommend collecting more recent reviews.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: The 2021 review is exceptionally detailed and promotional in tone; the 2013 review is a detailed complaint. Middle-ground experiences may be underrepresented.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size (3 usable reviews), significant time gaps, and conflicting evidence of service quality. The score reflects a business with demonstrated capability but inconsistent execution; more recent reviews are needed to assess current reliability.