Find Nearby Plumbers In Pembroke Pines, Florida

All four reviews are positive and paint a consistent picture of a responsive, professional plumber named Eddie. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all four reviews touching on attitude, communication, or customer service — including a notably fast emergency response within 30 minutes. Pricing is specifically praised in two reviews, with one detailed account of Eddie actively steering a customer toward a more affordable product, which is a strong positive signal. Project completion and experience are supported by references to jobs being finished promptly and correctly, though the reviews lack deep technical detail. Scores are held conservative across all dimensions due to the very small review pool and the age of most reviews, three of which are over three years old.

• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary only.
• Three of the four reviews are dated between 2018 and 2021, with the most recent being August 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months were provided, which significantly reduces confidence in current service quality.
• The first review ('If I could give more than 5 stars I would. Hands down the best plumber I've ever hired. HIGHLY recommended.') contains no specific details about any dimension and contributes minimal usable data. It has mild hallmarks of a generic positive review.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback whatsoever. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution when interpreting the scores.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, the most recent of which is over three years old, making it LOW confidence and unsuitable as a definitive measure of current contractor quality.

Hope Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in customer interactions, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, friendliness, and communication. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated estimates, and prices 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is generally solid with good follow-through, though some scheduling and quality control issues appear. The stark contrast between positive service experiences and negative pricing feedback creates a polarized review pattern, with many customers acknowledging good work but expressing regret over cost.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 40-50 reviews (primarily dated 2025-06-08 through 2025-06-05) exhibit highly suspicious characteristics: identical or near-identical phrasing ('amazingly positive experience,' 'quick and professional service,' 'Seth could not have been more helpful'), all 5-star ratings with minimal detail, repetitive structure, and clustering within 3-day window. These appear artificially generated to inflate ratings.
• SEVERE PRICING COMPLAINTS: 35+ reviews explicitly accuse Hope of price gouging, overcharging, and quoting 2-6x competitor prices for identical work. Multiple customers report getting second opinions and discovering Hope's estimates were $1,000-$4,000+ higher. This is the single most damaging pattern in the dataset.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews report missed appointments, rescheduling without notice, technicians arriving hours late, and customers being told 'we ran out of time' after blocking entire days. This contradicts the company's stated communication strengths.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: While many reviews praise technician skill, others report incomplete work, damage caused during service (flooded basements, broken water lines), and poor follow-up on warranty claims.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Numerous reviews describe technicians recommending expensive upgrades (water softeners, full system replacements) when simpler/cheaper fixes were available. Some customers report being pressured or given misleading diagnoses to justify higher-cost solutions.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to apparent fake reviews inflating the dataset, but the pricing complaints are credible, consistent, and corroborated across many independent reviews spanning years. The company excels at professionalism and technical skill but has a documented pattern of significantly overcharging relative to market rates, which materially impacts overall value and trustworthiness.

Next Plumbing Supply shows a deeply split customer experience. A core group of staff — particularly Melissa — receive consistent, enthusiastic praise for knowledge, professionalism, and follow-through on warranty and return issues, which drives positive scores in experience and project completion. However, a significant minority of reviews (5 out of 18, roughly 28%) describe outright rude, dismissive, or unhelpful staff interactions, including being ignored, lectured, and lied to — pulling professionalism scores down substantially. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who comment on it, with multiple reviewers calling prices competitive or excellent. The completion dimension is mixed: warranty replacements and part sourcing were handled well by some staff, but errors such as delivering the wrong product and failing to communicate necessary accessories (e.g., disposal power cord) reflect meaningful process failures.

• Several positive reviews focus exclusively on one staff member (Melissa) by name, which may reflect genuine standout performance but also suggests the customer experience is highly dependent on which employee is encountered — not a consistent company-wide standard.
• The review dated 2019-02-11 reads as potentially promotional in tone ('From the owners to the warehouse workers, they know what they are doing!!!') with excessive enthusiasm and named shoutouts to multiple staff members — possible insider or solicited review.
• Review dated 2019-01-09 contains multiple spelling errors and vague praise with no specifics ('the guys out back are great'), which is a low-detail pattern sometimes associated with inauthentic reviews.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews are from 2016–2021, with only two reviews from 2023. The most recent negative reviews are from 2021 and earlier. Current service quality may differ from what is reflected in this dataset.
• The 1-star reviews are specific, detailed, and describe distinct incidents (wrong product delivered, staff refusing to help near closing, being ignored on the showroom floor, being lied to about product availability), lending them high credibility and preventing dismissal as outliers.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, though the score reflects a genuinely polarized business where outcomes vary significantly by staff member encountered.

Plumbing by Bob has a deeply mixed record across nearly two decades of reviews. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and reveals a stark split: multiple reviewers praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, while several others report no-shows, unreturned calls, and ignored complaints — a pattern serious enough to drag the score well below average. Pricing drew notable criticism, with one reviewer explicitly calling weekend surcharges a rip-off and another feeling double-billed, though a handful of others found pricing reasonable or fair. Project completion is similarly divided: some jobs were finished same-day with cleanup included, but at least two cases involved repeat visits that still failed to resolve the issue, and one review documented faulty installation discovered years later. Experience scores modestly higher, with several reviewers praising skilled, knowledgeable work, though the incorrectly installed disposal and the persistent running toilet undercut confidence in consistent workmanship quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year relative to the most recent review date (2023-01-17). Only 1 review is from 2023, 1 from 2018, and 1 from 2015. The bulk of reviews date from 2006–2014, meaning current performance is largely unknown.
• PATTERN WARNING: Several older 5-star reviews (2006 era) are written in ALL CAPS with very generic praise and no specific details. These may represent lower-quality or coached reviews and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews (2012-06-14, 2012-11-07, 2023-01-17) explicitly report no-shows or complete failure to return calls, suggesting a recurring reliability problem that is not isolated.
• UNRESOLVED WORK PATTERN: At least 2 reviews describe jobs that required multiple visits and were still not resolved to the customer's satisfaction, indicating a project completion risk.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (LOW-LEVEL): The cluster of ALL-CAPS reviews from March 2006 with identical formatting and generic language is mildly suspicious, though they are spread across different job types. Confidence on those specific reviews is reduced.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews spanning 17 years and carries HIGH mention-volume confidence, but the score's real-world reliability is significantly limited by the age of most reviews and a documented pattern of no-shows and unresolved work that suggests inconsistent service quality.

Paramount Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well due to multiple positive mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and communication — but is dragged down by one reviewer describing the owner as 'unpleasant' and another reporting that follow-up calls and emails were ignored for months. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while several reviewers praise competitive or fair pricing, three separate negative reviewers explicitly call out overcharging, a $900 quote for a second toilet, and $300 for a basic faucet replacement — a serious and recurring concern. Project completion is mixed: most jobs appear to have been finished, but one reviewer reported a drain cleaning that failed within a week, and another was never provided a requested estimate despite multiple follow-ups. Experience scores reasonably well, with multiple reviewers praising Juan's technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the failed drain cleaning and incomplete follow-through temper that score.

• PRICING CONCERN: Three independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly complained about overcharging or unexpectedly high costs. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: One reviewer (Jan 2022) reported being ignored after multiple calls and emails requesting an estimate — a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most negative reviews regarding pricing and owner behavior are from 2020, which are over 4 years old. More recent reviews (2023–2024) trend more positive, suggesting possible improvement — but the $900 toilet quote complaint is from September 2024, indicating pricing concerns persist.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW AUTHENTICITY CONCERN: The March 2023 5-star review is written by a third party on behalf of a friend, and includes a nested 'review' from that friend within the same submission. This is an unusual structure and may inflate the positive review count artificially. Confidence in this review's independence is reduced.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 9 reviews total. While scores are calculated, the limited volume means individual outlier reviews have outsized influence on all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is low (9 reviews), the time span is wide (2020–2024), and there is a clear and persistent split between satisfied and dissatisfied customers, particularly around pricing, which makes a single summary score inherently imprecise.

A.D.S. Plumbing receives strong praise from several customers for responsiveness, professionalism, and pleasant demeanor, with multiple reviewers highlighting quick replies and timely work. However, the dataset is meaningfully tempered by two negative reviews: one describing poor communication and disinterest in taking on a job, and another alleging substandard workmanship and repeated failures to properly fix issues despite being paid over $2,500. The negative reviews introduce legitimate concerns about consistency in both professionalism and project completion quality. Pricing signals are mixed — one reviewer called the service affordable, while another implies money was taken without adequate results. Overall, the contractor shows a capable but inconsistent track record across the review history.

• Two reviews raise serious concerns: a 1-star review alleges shoddy workmanship and repeated Band-Aid fixes after being paid $2,500, and a 2-star review describes poor communication and unresponsiveness — these are not outliers and must weigh on the score.
• Several positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'great company and so professional, with a quick response' and 'professional, reliable, courteous and affordable'), which limits their evidentiary weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: Three of the seven reviews are from 2022 or earlier, including the most negative workmanship complaint (2019) and a strong positive (2020). The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are more positive, but the sample is too small to confirm a clear improvement trend.
• No confirmed fake review patterns detected, but the brevity of some 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning a wide date range, which limits reliability — the score reflects a genuine mixed picture but should be treated with caution until more recent and detailed reviews are available.