Find Nearby Plumbers In Palm Coast, Florida

Kraken Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions based on recent customer feedback. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of timely service, responsive communication, and courteous conduct. Pricing is described as fair and competitive in multiple reviews. Project completion is evidenced by successful resolution of complex issues including leak detection and rapid service delivery. Technical expertise is highlighted through problem-solving ability (locating difficult leaks) and specialized knowledge (tankless water heater maintenance). However, the small sample size (5 reviews) and uniformly positive ratings warrant moderate confidence in the overall score.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — consider whether this represents genuine universal satisfaction or potential selection bias
• Review language contains some informal/playful phrasing ('krackalackin', 'Cranking out') which is authentic but limits data density
• Sample size is small (n=5) — score reliability improves significantly with 10+ reviews
• All reviews are from recent period (May-July 2024), providing good recency but no historical perspective

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated as a positive indicator but with caution due to the small sample size and absence of any critical feedback; the score would gain substantially more credibility with additional reviews, particularly any negative or mixed feedback that would validate the assessment.

Mr. Rooter receives strong and consistent praise for professionalism, with numerous reviewers across multiple years highlighting courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as resolved quickly and thoroughly, though a handful of notable negative reviews describe incomplete diagnostics, a job requiring a return visit, and one serious incident involving a plumber allegedly drinking alcohol on the job and installing an unnecessary water heater. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call prices fair or reasonable, there are credible complaints about overpricing, a $9,600 re-pipe quote described as double competitors' rates, a $188 labor charge for a job a competitor did for $100, and one apartment owner explicitly noting price concerns for repeat customers. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but offset by incidents where technicians failed to test adjacent lines or misdiagnosed the root problem entirely. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with recurring but not isolated concerns around pricing transparency and occasional lapses in thoroughness.

• 16 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These reviews provide zero usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent review count.
• 2 reviews are labeled 'unknown' and 2 are labeled only '.' or blank — these were also excluded from scoring.
• A disproportionate number of reviews (especially the blank ones) are clustered on the same date (2025-05-10), which is a mild pattern flag. However, the named reviews from that date appear legitimate.
• One 1-star review (2024-08-13) contains only the word 'Unprofessional' with no detail — this is low-information but not clearly fake; it was counted as a professionalism mention with negative weight.
• One 1-star review (2022-02-25) describes a manager named Tina as 'unprofessional, ignorant, foul mouth' and alleges targeting of a senior citizen with an inflated re-pipe quote and a charge for a leak that was never found. This is a serious and specific complaint that meaningfully impacts the pricing and professionalism scores.
• One 1-star review (2020-03-05) alleges a technician was drinking alcohol in his truck and that an unnecessary water heater was installed — this is a significant workmanship and professionalism flag.
• One 2-star review (2019-09-27) describes a financing system failure that left a cracked water tank running for nearly a full day, causing water damage to a fixed-income senior. This reflects a serious project completion and customer care failure.
• Several reviews are more than 3 years old (2012–2019). Per recency rules, these were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) dominate the scoring.
• No fake review pattern detected among the text-bearing reviews — named technicians, specific job details, and varied language suggest authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a substantial number of text-bearing reviews spanning over a decade, with strong recency in 2024–2025, and is considered moderately reliable; however, the large volume of blank or no-text reviews, combined with several credible and specific negative reviews involving pricing abuse and workmanship failures, means consumers should read the negative reviews carefully before hiring.

John Thurston Plumbing demonstrates strong project completion and technical competence, with most customers praising rapid response times and effective problem-solving. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by multiple documented instances of rudeness, poor communication, and unprofessional behavior toward property managers and customers with legitimate concerns. Pricing is a consistent pain point, with customers frequently noting charges that feel high relative to work performed, though some acknowledge fair pricing in emergency situations. The business shows reliability in emergency response but inconsistency in interpersonal conduct and communication follow-through.

• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2015, 2017, 2019) document rude, dismissive, and unprofessional behavior including hanging up on customers, making accusations, and refusing work due to payment method preferences. This pattern suggests behavioral consistency issues.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Significant variation in customer perception of value. Some reviews cite fair pricing while others report charges of $155-$375 for minimal work (under 1 hour). Lack of transparent pricing structure noted.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Review from 2019-08-08 documents repeated promises to call that were never fulfilled, leading to customer seeking alternative service. Review from 2017-08-02 shows failure to properly document tenant contact information despite claiming otherwise.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Review from 2015-03-08 documents careless workmanship (breaking pipe during removal, leaving wall unrepaired) and defensive response to customer concerns. Review from 2016-05-24 mentions temporary jury-rigged solution that leaks.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2015-2019 period. More recent reviews (2022-2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible business practice improvements or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• PAYMENT METHOD LIMITATION: Multiple reviews note refusal to accept credit cards and high service call fees ($125-$175 for estimates), which may deter some customers and limit accessibility.

This score should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence in data volume. The business shows genuine strengths in emergency response and technical problem-solving, but documented patterns of unprofessional conduct and pricing inconsistency create meaningful risk. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on circumstances and communication style compatibility. The 76.8 score reflects a business that delivers functional results but with significant interpersonal and transparency concerns that prevent higher ratings.

Atlantic Plumbing Services has a strong overall reputation built on consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness across dozens of reviews spanning more than a decade. Professionalism scores well but is meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews citing rude owner behavior, ignored callbacks, and a failure to honor scheduling commitments. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or reasonable, but two serious complaints — one alleging an unauthorized $325 overcharge that was never refunded, and another citing a quote nearly $1,000 above market for a water heater — prevent a higher score. Project completion is solid for most jobs but is undermined by a new construction review describing shoddy, repeated-callback work, a warranty dispute handled rigidly, and one reviewer whose hot water problem was never actually resolved. Experience scores reflect genuine skill praised across many reviews, tempered by isolated but credible accounts of careless workmanship and a technician who misdiagnosed a tankless water heater issue that the homeowner later fixed in 10 minutes using manufacturer instructions.

• 5 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (3 rated 5-star, 1 rated 5-star, 1 rated 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• 3 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no detail. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several reviews are 10+ years old (2011–2014 range). While included for pattern context, they were given reduced weight relative to 2023–2025 reviews.
• One review (2016) alleges a plumber cracked a sink and then went completely unresponsive for nearly a year — a serious unresolved complaint that was factored into professionalism and project completion scores.
• One review (2019) alleges an unauthorized credit card charge of $325 above the quoted price that was promised to be refunded but never was — a significant integrity concern factored into pricing and professionalism.
• One review (2019) describes the owner yelling and threatening to abandon contracted work over a billing dispute — factored into professionalism.
• One review (2015) alleges the owner refused to speak to a female customer and directed her to get her husband — a serious conduct concern factored into professionalism.
• One review (2024) describes a new construction job as 'the worst experience ever' with shoddy work requiring 3 callbacks and a broken sump pump pipe that failed within a year — factored into project completion and experience.
• One review (2024) notes 3 weeks of no callbacks just to get on the schedule, then a 3-week wait — factored into professionalism and responsiveness.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and include a realistic mix of positive and negative experiences. Confidence in authenticity is reasonable.
• The business appears to have multiple plumbers (Mike, Kyle, Beau, Gerald, Zack, Andrew, Frankie, etc.), suggesting it has grown over time. Older negative reviews may reflect personnel or ownership dynamics that have since changed, but cannot be confirmed.

This WW Score is based on 80 reviews spanning 2011–2025 with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of multiple credible and detailed negative reviews — including unresolved billing disputes, abandoned warranty service, and conduct complaints — means the score should be treated as a realistic mid-tier rating rather than a near-perfect endorsement.

Michael's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, which drives solid professionalism and experience scores. However, several detailed 1-star reviews describe serious failures: incomplete work, unresolved leaks requiring multiple return visits, ignored callbacks, warranty disputes, and at least one instance of an elderly customer being charged for a job that was not properly completed. These negative reviews are highly specific and credible, significantly pulling down the project completion score. Pricing feedback is generally favorable among those who mentioned it, with multiple reviewers calling rates fair or reasonable. The overall picture is of a contractor who performs well on straightforward jobs but has a documented pattern of poor follow-through on complex or problematic work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'It went very well and did a great job.' with a 5-star rating appears twice on the exact same date (2020-11-11). One instance has been treated as a duplicate and effectively discounted.
• GENERIC/LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 1-3 words (e.g., 'Perfect!!!', 'Excellent job', 'Great job.', 'Perfectly.', 'First class service!', 'Done well and quickly', 'excellent service.'). These provide minimal usable signal and may inflate positive sentiment without substantive evidence.
• UNKNOWN REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no descriptive content. These have been excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2022-05-03). Most reviews date from 2015-2020, with only one review from 2022 and one from 2021. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN: Four detailed 1-star reviews (2013, 2018 x2, 2020 x2) describe incomplete work, ignored warranty claims, repeated failed repair attempts, no-shows, and unresponsive management. These are highly specific and credible and represent a meaningful minority of the review pool.
• LEGITIMACY CONCERN: One 1-star reviewer (2018) claims the business entity 'Michael's Plumbing Services' was dissolved by the State of Tennessee as of 02/13/2013 and that the business was operating without a valid registration. This has not been verified but is a serious flag if accurate.

The WW Score of 74.2 is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describing incomplete work and poor follow-through, a cluster of uninformative generic reviews, duplicate and 'unknown' entries, and the fact that most reviews are more than two years old.

Aaron Crandall Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, responsiveness, and technical knowledge, particularly for water heater work and leak detection. However, several serious negative reviews significantly temper the scores: one customer alleged a bait-and-switch on a hybrid water heater system with a permit pulled only after complaints, another described poor workmanship that left their system out of code requiring a second plumber, and a third reported being billed at an undisclosed $250/hr rate with substandard materials installed. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing excessive or non-transparent charges alongside the many who praised reasonable rates. Project completion is also modestly scored due to documented cases of incomplete work, failure to return calls, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of praise for technical skill, but is pulled down by specific instances of poor recommendations and code violations.

• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2020, with fewer recent positive reviews. The most recent reviews (2022–2024) skew negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. More weight has been given to post-2023 reviews.
• PERMIT VIOLATION FLAG: One 2024 reviewer explicitly states work was performed without a permit, with the permit only pulled after a formal complaint was filed with local authorities. This is a serious compliance concern.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATION: The most recent review (August 2024) alleges a quoted hybrid water heater system was not installed, and a standard $500 unit was substituted while charging $2,800 total — a significant and specific fraud allegation.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: A 2022 reviewer states the plumbers left their hot water heater installation out of code, charged $1,089, refused to return, and a second plumber had to be hired to remediate the work.
• BILLING DISPUTE FLAG: A 2023 reviewer reports receiving a surprise bill four months after warranty service with a one-day payment window, and Rheem's own contractor department confirmed the billing practice was improper.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: One reviewer noted aggressive upselling of camera systems and additional services during a diagnostic visit, and a poor recommendation to remove a drain field filter that could have caused property damage.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: A 2015 reviewer reports the plumber was unable to complete a garbage disposal installation, left a faucet with only hot water, and never returned calls — requiring a second plumber.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The volume of generic 5-star praise (e.g., 'prompt, courteous and efficient! what else would one want!?') with minimal specifics raises minor concern, though many positive reviews do include job-specific details. No definitive fake review pattern detected, but some reviews are thin on verifiable detail.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence given 36 reviews, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a clear pattern of serious recent complaints involving permit violations, billing disputes, and workmanship failures that contrast sharply with the older positive review base.