Find Nearby Plumbers In Palm Bay, Florida

All American Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. The most recent reviews (2024–2025, predominantly from what appears to be a San Diego-area operation) are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians like Lance, Mason, Elliott, JoJo, Justin, Ryan, and Nick for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2021, many referencing a technician named Robert and home warranty company assignments, likely a different geographic location or franchise) describes a pattern of serious failures: no-shows, misdiagnoses, rude office staff, abandoned jobs, overcharging, and dishonest reporting to home warranty companies. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems made worse, and failure to follow through. Pricing scores are mixed — recent customers praise fair and transparent quotes, while older customers describe significant overcharging and bait-and-switch tactics. The experience dimension similarly splits between highly skilled recent technicians and incompetent or fraudulent older service calls.

• CRITICAL: The review pool appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct business entities or locations operating under the name 'All American Plumbing.' Recent reviews (2024–2025) reference San Diego-area technicians and a clearly different operational culture from older reviews (2012–2021) that repeatedly reference a technician named 'Robert' and home warranty fraud patterns. Scores should be interpreted with this bifurcation in mind.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews from late 2021 (dates: 2021-12-01 to 2021-12-02) are clustered within 48 hours, are unusually generic in praise, and reference a Texas/Houston-area business context inconsistent with the San Diego reviews. One reviewer (2022-01-25) explicitly flags these as suspected fake reviews posted by California residents for a Houston business.
• 14 reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent 80+ reviews (2024–2025) are almost entirely 5-star and reflect a high-performing San Diego operation. The older reviews (pre-2023) contain a disproportionate number of 1-star reviews describing a pattern of fraud, rudeness, and incompetence. If evaluating only the last 12 months, scores would be substantially higher across all dimensions.
• PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS — HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers assigned through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, Old Republic, 2-10, First American). These reviews describe a consistent pattern of misdiagnosis, upselling, no-shows, and dishonest reporting to warranty companies. This pattern is strong enough to suggest systemic rather than isolated failures in that operational context.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-07-06, 1-star) alleges a company truck attempted to run the reviewer off the road. This is an isolated conduct allegation that cannot be scored but is flagged as a serious concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2023-06-23, 1-star) contains an allegation of spying on an elderly customer and reporting personal activities to an HOA. This is an isolated but serious allegation flagged for awareness.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years cite a receptionist named 'Jennifer' as rude, condescending, and argumentative. This is a recurring named pattern suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the office level, not isolated to field technicians.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool almost certainly spans two distinct business entities or operational eras — the recent San Diego operation (2024–2025) would score approximately 88–92 on its own, while the older review corpus (pre-2023, likely a different location) would score approximately 35–45, and consumers should research which entity they are engaging before relying on this blended score.

B&D Plumbing has a large and long-running review history with a strong majority of positive experiences, particularly around professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and covering no-shows, missed appointments without callbacks, poor workmanship (back-stabbing outlets, failed pipe repairs), and pricing disputes — prevents a high score across all dimensions. Pricing is a recurring concern in both directions: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling overcharged for short visits or minimal work. Project completion is dragged down by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one instance of a repair failing repeatedly. The experience dimension scores highest due to numerous detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics and creative problem-solving, but is tempered by documented cases of substandard workmanship.

• 17 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use the name 'Tom' or 'Dale' specifically and appear to reference different geographic markets (Cincinnati/Ohio area vs. Baton Rouge/Louisiana vs. Riverside/California), suggesting this may be a shared brand name used by multiple independent operators. Scores may reflect mixed contractor quality rather than a single business.
• Multiple no-show and missed appointment complaints span from 2013 through 2024, indicating a persistent and systemic reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2021) explicitly states B&D is a middleman/sales company that subcontracts work to other plumbing companies, which may explain inconsistency in quality and pricing across reviews.
• One review (2025) alleges the company stole a commercial job from the reviewer — a serious ethics complaint that could not be verified but is noted.
• One review (2025) documents use of a fire-hazardous back-stabbing wiring method by what appears to be an electrical service call, suggesting possible scope confusion or a different trade operating under the same brand.
• The review base spans from 2004 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The majority of detailed negative reviews are concentrated in 2019–2025, suggesting possible quality decline over time.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, though a number of very short generic positive reviews ('Fantastic company.', 'A good company to work with.', 'Great customer service') with no specifics slightly reduce confidence in the positive signal.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of inconsistent service quality across what may be multiple operators sharing the B&D Plumbing brand name in different regions.

Accurate Plumbing and Electrical Solutions has a broadly positive review base, with many customers praising friendly, professional technicians and reasonable pricing. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews describes serious quality failures — including a dangerous gas leak after a water heater install, a snake left lodged in a drain and charged for as fixed, incomplete drain clearing, hidden charges, and a refusal to honor warranty callbacks — which significantly temper the scores across all dimensions. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as multiple reviews describe work that was not properly finished, not followed through on, or required a second company to correct. Professionalism scores are pulled down by reports of rude customer service representatives, failure to return calls, and deceptive scheduling practices. Several reviewers explicitly note that the company has declined in quality in recent years compared to its earlier reputation, which is a meaningful signal given the date range of reviews spanning 2012 to 2025.

• Four reviews posted on the exact same date (2024-10-12) with identical 5-star ratings, vague praise, and no specific technician names or job details — these are highly suspicious and may be fake or solicited reviews. Confidence in those reviews is reduced.
• Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company has deteriorated in quality over recent years compared to past performance, suggesting a meaningful decline in service standards.
• One review describes a potentially life-threatening gas leak caused by improperly tightened gas lines after a water heater installation — a serious safety and competence red flag.
• One review describes a snake being left in a drain, the job being charged as completed, and the issue only discovered when a second company was called — indicating possible fraudulent billing.
• Several negative reviews describe the company refusing to honor callbacks or warranty claims, with customer service representatives being unresponsive or dismissive.
• Review date range spans 2012 to 2025. Many of the most positive reviews are from 2017–2021 or earlier. The most recent negative reviews (2021–2024) suggest a downward trend in quality that should be weighted more heavily.
• One reviewer notes that all 5-star reviews appear to be from several years back, consistent with the observed pattern in this dataset.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (42) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible evidence of service quality decline in recent years, suspected fake reviews in the 2024 cluster, and multiple serious safety and completion failures documented in 1-star reviews.

Joe's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, politeness, and technical knowledge across multiple reviews. Pricing is perceived as fair and reasonable by most customers. However, project completion shows some variability—while most jobs are completed successfully, one 2017 review documents a significant failure where the contractor abandoned a job mid-service due to a customer disagreement, leaving the customer without functional sinks for days. Experience and workmanship quality are consistently praised as excellent. The overall score reflects strong fundamentals tempered by the documented service failure and the age of several reviews (oldest from 2010).

• One severely negative review from 2017 (1-star) documents a complete service failure and unprofessional conduct (storming out, calling customer a 'know-it-all'). This is a material concern that significantly impacts project completion scoring.
• Review recency is mixed: 3 reviews from 2024, 1 from 2023, 2 from 2017, and 2 from 2010-2012. Most recent reviews (2023-2024) are uniformly positive, but older reviews include the major failure incident.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences with concrete examples.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently strong and professionalism is well-documented, the 2017 service failure and project abandonment represent a material risk factor that cannot be ignored. The score reflects current performance based on recent data, but potential customers should be aware of the documented incident.

This contractor demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in project completion (88) and pricing fairness (80). Professionalism scores well at 78, supported by consistent mentions of responsiveness, same-day service, and courteous behavior across six reviews. However, one significant 1-star review from 2017 citing unprofessional conduct (technician appearing under the influence) and poor communication substantially impacts the professionalism score. Experience is well-documented at 85 based on successful complex jobs including whole-house repipes and cast iron drain replacement. The overall WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong capability tempered by the serious professionalism incident.

• One severe negative review (1-star, 2017) alleges technician appeared under the influence and poor communication/pricing. This is a material concern that significantly impacts professionalism confidence despite six positive mentions.
• Five of six positive reviews are 5-star ratings with similar positive phrasing ('nice,' 'fair price,' 'prompt,' 'would recommend'). While not definitively fake, the consistency warrants noting. However, the 2017 negative review provides authenticity balance.
• Most positive reviews are older than 12 months (2019-2022 range), with only two from 2023-2024. Recent data is limited.
• The 2017 negative review is significantly older than positive reviews, but the severity of allegations (impaired technician) cannot be dismissed by age alone.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent positive reviews (2023-2024) and consistent mentions across dimensions suggest current strong performance, the serious 2017 professionalism incident and limited recent review volume (only 2 reviews in past 12 months) prevent higher confidence. The contractor appears capable but has a documented history of serious issues that may or may not have been resolved.

Magnolia Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and professional demeanor across multiple reviews. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident from successful leak detection and repair work. However, project completion shows mixed signals—while most jobs were completed, one 2012 review indicates a heating system repair that required multiple visits and ultimately failed to resolve the underlying issue, suggesting potential limitations in diagnostic accuracy or scope management. Pricing data is sparse; only two reviews mention cost, with one noting $700 for multiple visits and another praising fair prices, making confident pricing assessment difficult. The review portfolio is heavily weighted toward older reviews (2005, 2012, 2020, 2022), with only one recent review from 2024.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 6 reviews are older than 2 years (2005, 2012, 2020, 2022). Only 1 recent review from 2024. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: 2012 review describes a heating system that required multiple service calls, was not fully repaired, and still requires replacement. This contradicts the 5-star rating and suggests either customer dissatisfaction with outcome or misalignment between rating and actual satisfaction.
• PRICING DATA INSUFFICIENT: Only 2 of 6 reviews mention pricing. One review explicitly states uncertainty about pricing fairness ('pricing and quality is hard to judge since I don't know the price that was done'). Pricing score is based on minimal evidence.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: All 6 reviews are 5-star despite documented issues (incomplete repair, multiple visits). This pattern suggests potential rating inflation or selection bias in review collection.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias (83% of reviews older than 2 years), insufficient pricing data (2 mentions only), and a documented project completion failure that contradicts its 5-star rating. The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service quality.