Find Nearby Plumbers In Palm Bay, Florida

Clay Rogers (Water Heater Man of Brevard / Atlantic Shores Plumbing) demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high mention counts and positive feedback. Professionalism is the strongest dimension (88.5), driven by extensive praise for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness across 287 reviews. Project completion scores 87.5 based on 198 mentions, with most reviews confirming timely job completion and follow-through, though two significant negative reviews document serious service failures after installation. Pricing scores 82.0 from 156 mentions—customers consistently report fair and competitive rates, though a few note prices as slightly high. Experience scores 85.0 from 167 mentions, reflecting strong technical knowledge and quality workmanship. The WW Score of 86.2 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with excellent communication and execution, tempered by documented post-installation service gaps in a small minority of cases.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Approximately 40% of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates with identical text and same-day timestamps (e.g., multiple reviews dated 2023-05-26, 2023-02-19, 2022-09-08, etc.). This pattern suggests either data entry errors or potential review manipulation. Confidence should be adjusted downward slightly due to inflated review count.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE PATTERN: Two detailed negative reviews (2024-04-23 and 2021-05-10) document serious post-installation service failures: (1) melted control panel with no callback after 4+ attempts over 2 weeks; (2) uncapped gas pipe and unresolved check valve issue after payment. Both reviewers explicitly state Clay does not service his own installations. This is a material weakness in project completion.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2017-2020 (older than 4 years). Only 3 reviews are from 2024, and the most recent negative review is from April 2024, suggesting ongoing service issues. Recent data is limited.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Many reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('friendly and professional,' 'on time,' 'great job,' 'would recommend') with minimal specifics. While not necessarily fake, this limits ability to assess nuance.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain only ratings with no text or single words ('n/a', 'Good', 'none'), reducing data quality.

This WW Score of 86.2 is reliable for assessing typical installation quality and professionalism, but should be treated with MODERATE caution due to duplicate reviews inflating the dataset, significant post-installation service failures documented in recent reviews, and limited recent data (only 3 reviews from 2024). The score accurately reflects strong initial service and workmanship but understates the risk of unresolved issues after payment.

GPS Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 16 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness—including same-day service and early arrivals. Project completion is consistently reliable, with 14 reviews confirming jobs finished on time and follow-through on callbacks and defective parts. Experience and technical knowledge are well-documented across 11 reviews, with customers noting knowledgeable staff and quality workmanship. Pricing receives moderate support (6 mentions) with most describing it as fair and competitive, though one 2020 review raised concerns about a $600 charge for a small pipe replacement, suggesting potential price sensitivity depending on job scope. Two identical 1-star reviews from June 2020 citing rudeness and overbooking represent the only significant negative pattern.

• Duplicate review detected: Two identical 1-star reviews dated 2020-06-10 (timestamps differ by 1 second) citing rudeness and appointment cancellation. This may indicate a single incident reported twice or a data entry error.
• Recency skew: 14 of 21 reviews (67%) are from 2020 or earlier. Only 3 reviews are from 2024, and 5 from 2021-2023. Recent performance data is limited.
• Polarized ratings: 18 five-star reviews, 2 one-star reviews, 1 three-star review. No middle-ground ratings (2, 3, or 4 stars except one 3-star). This distribution is atypical but not necessarily indicative of fake reviews—may reflect genuine satisfaction or dissatisfaction with limited middle-ground experiences.
• One review (2020-12-18, 3-star) explicitly mentions customer concern about pricing relative to insurance payout, suggesting potential perception of opportunistic pricing in specific contexts.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions based on 5+ mentions each. However, the score is anchored primarily to reviews from 2019–2022; recent performance (2024) is underrepresented with only 2 recent reviews, so current service quality should be verified with recent customer references. The two identical negative reviews and one pricing concern warrant acknowledgment but do not substantially undermine the overall positive pattern.

Auger's Plumbing has a strong and consistent track record across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and quality of work. Pricing scores well overall but is modestly penalized by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing billing discrepancies, unexpected charges, and quotes that did not match final invoices — a meaningful signal across multiple independent reviews. Project completion is similarly strong but is pulled down by several serious negative reviews describing abandoned or botched work, unresolved callbacks, and at least one case of significant property damage caused by an unlicensed technician. The negative reviews, while a minority, are detailed, credible, and span multiple years, which prevents the score from reaching the high 90s. The overall picture is of a generally reliable local plumber with a loyal customer base, but with documented quality-control and billing transparency issues that prospective customers should be aware of.

• 14 reviews contain no text at all (blank or 'unknown') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the raw review count without providing usable data.
• Several reviews use very similar generic phrasing ('great service,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional and friendly') with no specific details, which may indicate some low-effort or coached reviews, though not conclusive evidence of fabrication.
• All scored reviews are 5-star except for 5 negative reviews (1-star and 2-star). The concentration of 5-star ratings warrants mild skepticism, though the negative reviews are detailed and credible.
• Pricing dimension is penalized due to 4 independent negative reviews citing billing discrepancies: charges exceeding quoted amounts (2014 garbage disposal, 2014 reconnect job, 2017 sprinkler escalation), and one case of an unnecessary replacement costing $1,285 due to misdiagnosis (2016).
• Project completion is penalized due to: a 2021 review describing a dishwasher installation that left the unit non-functional, damaged cabinetry, notched countertops, and missing floorboards with no satisfactory resolution; a 2017 review describing a sprinkler/backflow job that was never completed correctly; and a 2012 review describing serious property damage caused by an unlicensed technician who incorrectly reassembled a mixing valve, causing flooding.
• The 2012 negative review describes use of an unlicensed technician — a serious licensing and liability concern. It is unclear whether this practice has continued.
• Many positive reviews are from 2025 (recent) which is a good sign, but a significant portion of detailed reviews — both positive and negative — date from 2012–2021, meaning the score reflects a long historical window. Recency weighting favors the positive trend in 2025 reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with sufficient mentions across all four dimensions to carry HIGH confidence; however, the presence of multiple detailed, credible negative reviews — particularly around billing transparency and project completion — means prospective customers should read the negative reviews carefully before hiring.

CDS Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians Fred, Mark, and Paul for punctuality, professionalism, and quality workmanship. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with multiple reviewers expressing pleasant surprise at final bills. Project completion is strong, with same-day service and thorough follow-through cited frequently, though one notable negative review describes a recurring leak that was billed three times without resolution. The scores are modestly tempered by a recurring pattern of complaints specifically targeting office/receptionist staff — three separate reviewers across different years describe being hung up on or treated rudely by the front office, which meaningfully impacts the professionalism dimension. These negative interactions represent a consistent and credible operational weakness that prevents top-tier scoring.

• OFFICE STAFF PATTERN: Three distinct reviewers (2017, 2021 x2) independently describe being hung up on or treated rudely by the receptionist/office staff. This is a consistent, credible pattern and not an isolated incident. It materially lowers the professionalism score.
• UNRESOLVED WORK COMPLAINT: One detailed 1-star review (2019) describes a leak that was missed across multiple visits, resulting in property damage and three separate charges without resolution. This is a serious project completion concern, though it is a single incident among many positive reviews.
• PRICING CONCERN (MINOR): One 1-star reviewer (2020) questioned a $500+ quote for shower faucet work that turned out to be a simple fix requiring no professional intervention. While the reviewer's framing is self-serving, it raises a minor concern about quote accuracy for diagnostic work.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative reviews are older (2017–2021), while the most recent reviews (2022–2025) are uniformly positive. This suggests possible improvement in service consistency over time, but the office staff issue appeared as recently as late 2021.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and described scenarios. No significant patterns of fabricated or templated reviews were detected. The review set appears authentic.
• APPOINTMENT/RESPONSIVENESS ISSUE: One reviewer (2020) reported submitting two online appointment requests over 30 days with no response, indicating a possible gap in digital communication follow-up.

This WW Score is based on 51 reviews spanning 2017–2025 with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of CDS Plumbing's overall performance — though users should be aware of a documented and recurring weakness in front-office customer service interactions.

Sun Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (86.5), project completion (85.0), and technical experience (84.0). The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous service, with technicians frequently praised for knowledge and efficiency. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with numerous customers citing excessive charges, hidden fees, and poor value relative to work performed. While most reviews are positive, the pricing complaints are explicit and recurring, preventing a higher overall score. Recent reviews (past 12 months) maintain this pattern, suggesting current pricing practices remain a concern.

• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE EXPLICIT AND RECURRING: Multiple reviews cite overcharging ($560 for clog clearing, $337 for 20-minute service, $174.30 for 15 minutes, $135 for 5-minute snap-in cover). This is not absence of praise but active dissatisfaction with value.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 20 reviews contain only 'unknown' or single-word text ('.' or '.') with 5-star ratings. These appear to be placeholder or incomplete entries rather than genuine detailed reviews. However, the majority of reviews (207+) contain substantive detail, limiting overall fake review concern.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most reviews are from 2013-2025, with heavy concentration in 2025 (40+ reviews) and 2014-2016 (80+ reviews). Older reviews (pre-2012) are sparse. Recent pricing complaints (June 2025) align with historical pattern, suggesting issue is persistent.
• SCHEDULING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews mention difficulty obtaining timely appointments (3-7 day waits during emergencies), though emergency same-day service is also documented. This suggests capacity constraints during peak periods.
• QUALITY VARIANCE BY TECHNICIAN: Reviews frequently name individual technicians (Edward, Jason, Mark, Steve, etc.) with consistently positive feedback, suggesting quality is technician-dependent rather than company-wide systematic.

This WW Score of 82.3 is highly reliable due to large sample size (227 reviews) and balanced data across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with excellent service delivery and professionalism but significant pricing concerns that prevent higher ratings. Customers should expect professional, timely work but should obtain written estimates and verify pricing before authorizing work.

First Quality Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance driven by exceptional professionalism and technical expertise. Technicians consistently receive praise for punctuality, politeness, knowledge, and thorough explanations of work. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing unexpectedly high charges, inconsistent pricing across locations, and concerns about fair value. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly 5-star, but older reviews reveal recurring pricing complaints and occasional service failures that warrant caution.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2020-2025) report significant price disparities—customers charged $330 for faucet installation, $1100 for water heater labor, $771 for installation with improper configuration. One customer paid $500 elsewhere for identical work. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or regional variation not clearly communicated.
• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 70% of reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months) and are uniformly 5-star with detailed praise. Older reviews (2012-2019) show more balanced feedback including legitimate complaints. Recent reviews may reflect selection bias or improved practices, but confidence in recent scores should account for this temporal clustering.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Several reviews describe installation errors (garbage disposal with only 1 of 3 screws installed, improper water heater piping configuration, shower plumbing not modified before wall closure). These suggest inconsistent quality control despite generally positive technician feedback.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Older reviews (2017-2019) document significant office staff issues—missed callbacks, poor internal coordination, scheduling failures. More recent reviews show improvement, but this pattern indicates systemic problems that may recur.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERNS: Multiple 5-star reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text (15+ instances from 2014-2016), and several recent reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend'). While not conclusive fake review evidence, this warrants reduced confidence in the oldest and newest review clusters.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CREDIBLE: The 1-star reviews (pricing complaints, incomplete work, lack of follow-up) are detailed and specific, not generic complaints. These appear legitimate and should not be dismissed.

This WW Score of 82.3 is moderately reliable but should be interpreted cautiously: professionalism and experience scores (87-88) are well-supported by 89-98 mentions and carry HIGH confidence; however, the pricing score (72) is based on only 28 mentions and reflects genuine customer concerns about value inconsistency that may not be fully captured by the overall score. The heavy weighting toward recent 5-star reviews may inflate the score relative to historical performance. Customers should expect strong technical work and professional service but should obtain detailed pricing quotes in writing and compare with competitors, as pricing appears to be the primary risk factor.