Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Petersburg, Florida

Max Solon Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and courteous staff across 22 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and to specification, though three negative reviews cite incomplete or incorrect work. Pricing shows mixed sentiment: most reviews praise fair/reasonable rates, but three reviews explicitly criticize high costs or unexpected charges, pulling the pricing score down. Experience is generally strong with skilled technicians, though the 2023 recirculation pump failure and 2018 water softener/sink repair failures indicate occasional knowledge gaps on specialized installations.

• Three negative reviews (2023-02-10, 2018-11-01, 2018-08-23) describe significant failures: incorrect diagnosis, poor workmanship, and price overages. These are credible complaints with specific details and should not be dismissed.
• One positive review (2021-08-09) mentions Ian installing a recirculating system successfully, but the 2023-02-10 review shows Ian failed on a similar recirculation pump job. This suggests inconsistent execution on specialized work.
• Pricing complaints are specific and detailed (50% overcharge, $330 vs $150 for same job, $300 unnecessary charge), indicating genuine pricing concerns despite majority of reviews praising affordability.
• Review recency: 15 of 26 reviews are from 2019 or earlier (58%). Only 4 reviews from past 12 months. Older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Negative reviews contain specific details and credible complaints. Positive reviews vary in language and detail level.

This WW Score of 82.1 is moderately reliable. Strong professionalism and project completion data (HIGH confidence) are offset by legitimate pricing concerns and three credible negative reviews documenting poor workmanship and cost overages. The score reflects a generally competent company with communication strengths but inconsistent execution on complex jobs and pricing transparency issues. Recency bias is a concern given 58% of reviews predate 2019.

Shamrock Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven by consistently high marks in experience (85.0) and professionalism (84.0). The company excels at technical competency, responsiveness, and punctuality across most reviews. However, pricing emerges as a relative weakness (76.5), with recurring complaints about service call fees, high estimates, and perceived overcharging. Project completion scores (82.0) reflect generally solid follow-through, though some customers report incomplete work and difficulty scheduling callbacks. The company's performance is notably uneven—many reviews praise exceptional service, while others document serious failures in communication, billing transparency, and follow-up.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews cite high service call fees ($89-$110 for diagnostics), overcharging relative to competitors, and billing disputes. At least 8 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns or feeling overcharged.
• PROJECT COMPLETION GAPS: Several customers report incomplete work, failed callbacks, and difficulty rescheduling (reviews from 2024-08-13, 2021-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2017-08-01). One customer waited 2+ months for incomplete dishwasher installation.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document poor follow-up on estimates, unresponsive staff, and failure to return calls (2019-06-11, 2019-03-23, 2017-08-01, 2016-03-24). At least 6 reviews mention lack of communication or responsiveness.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: One detailed 2022-01-03 review alleges owner Paul was rude, dismissive, and threatening toward long-term customers, including threatening a lien on a house for a <$300 invoice. This suggests potential systemic management issues.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews document billing disagreements, undisclosed charges, and disputes over verbal agreements not honored (2016-04-08 appears twice with identical content, suggesting copy-paste; 2017-07-28 describes quote vs. bid confusion; 2016-03-10 cites $1,600 bill for water heater repair).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in customer experience—some reviews praise exceptional work, others report sloppy workmanship (muddy footprints, damaged tiles, left debris). This suggests inconsistent technician quality or training.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star, older reviews (2012-2019) contain more detailed negative feedback. Recent 5-star reviews are often generic with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review filtering.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (no text, only 5-star rating) appear throughout dataset (2025-06-02, 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2024-06-09, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2016-06-11). This pattern is atypical and raises authenticity concerns.
• GENDER BIAS ALLEGATION: 2022-01-03 review alleges service quality declined after grandfather passed and mother became head of household, suggesting potential discriminatory treatment.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competency and responsiveness in many cases, significant red flags around billing practices, management conduct, project completion follow-through, and communication consistency undermine confidence. The prevalence of empty/generic recent reviews and detailed negative reviews from 2012-2019 suggests the dataset may not be fully representative. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, clarify billing terms in writing, and verify follow-up commitments before engaging Shamrock Plumbing.

Tampa Bay Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in technical expertise and professionalism. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship, with many reviews praising specific technicians by name and highlighting problem-solving ability. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers reporting unexpectedly high bills, undisclosed charges (particularly camera fees), and quotes significantly higher than competitors. Project completion is generally solid, though a few reviews mention incomplete work on first visits requiring callbacks. The company shows strong responsiveness to complaints and willingness to make corrections, as evidenced by refunds and follow-up service.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 6) explicitly criticize pricing as excessive, with specific complaints about undisclosed camera charges ($400), total bills of $820-$1450 for diagnostic work, and quotes 2.5x higher than competitors. This is the most consistent negative pattern in the dataset.
• INCOMPLETE WORK ON FIRST VISIT: Several reviews mention callbacks required to complete jobs properly (e.g., bathtub drain issue requiring two visits, clogged line still clogged after two visits, dishwasher misdiagnosis).
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: One 2019 review describes a technician as 'very aggressive in nature' and 'angry asshole,' and another 2017 review mentions a technician who was 4 hours late and charged after-hours rates for a 5-minute assessment. This suggests inconsistent hiring/training standards.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain no text or only punctuation marks (just '.', '-', or blank), all rated 5.0. These appear to be placeholder entries and reduce data quality slightly.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A cluster of 5-star reviews from May 10, 2025 and May 19, 2025 with minimal or no text content raises minor concerns about review authenticity, though most substantive reviews appear genuine.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of detailed reviews are from 2025 and 2024 (past 12 months), showing strong recent performance. Older negative reviews (2013-2019) may reflect past issues now resolved.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 100 reviews with substantial detail across all four dimensions. The HIGH overall confidence is justified by strong mention counts (48-62) for three dimensions. However, the pricing dimension (18 mentions, MODERATE confidence) is a genuine weakness that significantly impacts the overall score—customers consistently report surprise at final bills and lack of transparent pricing communication. The company's demonstrated willingness to refund disputed charges and provide emergency service suggests operational integrity, but pricing transparency remains a critical area for improvement.

J&J Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism, experience, and project completion. The company consistently receives praise for punctuality, responsiveness, technical skill, and honest communication. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing overcharges and unfair rates for routine work. Several negative reviews highlight serious issues including incomplete repairs, poor follow-up on callbacks, and customer service failures. The company's long operational history and numerous repeat customers indicate genuine capability, but inconsistency in service quality and pricing transparency are concerns.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2021-11-11, 2023-02-10) explicitly cite overcharging and unfair pricing practices. One customer reported $350 for a 20-minute drain cleaning and noted the company was 'proud' of overcharging neighbors. This pattern suggests systematic pricing issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & CALLBACKS: Review from 2022-08-11 describes a plumber (Jerry) who made a toilet problem worse and refused to provide callback service or refund. Review from 2022-05-27 documents two no-shows and failure to complete scheduled work.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2023-07-03 notes cleanliness issues (dirt smeared on walls, footprints tracked through home). Review from 2023-02-10 describes incomplete work with equipment failure.
• UNRELATED INCIDENT: Review from 2017-04-18 describes aggressive driving behavior by a company van driver, which may reflect company culture but is not directly related to plumbing service quality.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text or only punctuation (dates 2021-06-10, 2018-06-11, 2015-10-07, 2015-08-10), limiting data quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2018 or earlier (approximately 70% of dataset). Only 5 reviews are from 2023-2024, making recent performance assessment difficult. Recent reviews show more negative patterns than historical reviews.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with moderate caution. While the score is based on substantial data (55 usable reviews with HIGH confidence across most dimensions), the dataset is heavily weighted toward older reviews (pre-2020), and recent reviews (2023-2024) show a concerning shift toward negative feedback regarding pricing and service completion. The pricing dimension, though based on MODERATE confidence, reveals a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction that may be underrepresented in the overall score. The company demonstrates genuine technical capability and professionalism in many cases, but inconsistency in pricing transparency and follow-through on callbacks represents material risks.

Next Level Plumbing (formerly Pro-Plumbing Works) earns strong marks for professionalism and project completion, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and thorough follow-through on jobs. Technical experience is also well-regarded, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians who explained issues clearly and solved complex problems. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: at least five reviews explicitly call out prices as high, excessive, or even predatory — including one detailed complaint about a $566 quote for a toilet seal repair and another about $500 in warranty-covered parts that were never flagged as such. These are not isolated gripes but a recurring pattern across multiple years and reviewers. Project completion scores well because most jobs appear to have been finished satisfactorily, though one older review noted ongoing tenant complaints after work was done.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2018, 2022, 2025) explicitly describe pricing as excessively high, with one 2025 reviewer citing a $566 quote for a toilet seal and another a $1,100+ quote for two toilet repairs. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an outlier.
• WARRANTY FAILURE: One reviewer (2018) reported that technicians replaced shower valve parts without informing the customer they were covered under a lifetime warranty, resulting in ~$500 in unnecessary charges. This is a serious integrity concern.
• BLANK/EMOJI REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contained no text (blank or emoji-only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2014 to 2025. Older reviews (pre-2020) reference different staff (Chuck, Victor, Radames, Zane) compared to recent reviews (Matthew, Evan, Michael, Ethan, Brendon), suggesting significant staff turnover or a business rebrand. Scores are weighted toward more recent reviews.
• POSSIBLE REBRAND: The business appears to have operated under 'Pro-Plumbing Works' in earlier years and 'Next Level Plumbing' more recently. One 2024 review references both names. This may reflect an acquisition or rebrand, and older reviews may not fully reflect current operations.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-03-11 and 2025-05-19 share identical date stamps across many entries, which may indicate batch-imported or solicited reviews. While content varies enough to avoid outright fake-review flagging, this warrants mild caution.

The WW Score of 79.4 is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it reasonable reliability, but the recurring and specific pricing complaints — including one involving potential warranty fraud — meaningfully suppress the score and should be taken seriously by prospective customers.

Romo's Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a notable weak point: multiple negative reviews cite a $625 faucet quote (vs. $225–$275 elsewhere), a $2,100 job completed in 3 hours with no billing adjustment, and a $189/hour rate dispute that led to a hostile owner interaction — these drag the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is generally strong but is tempered by one no-call/no-show incident and one case where technicians arrived late and refused to complete the scheduled work. Experience scores well overall, with multiple reviewers specifically praising diagnostic skill, technical knowledge, and code awareness, though the negative service incidents prevent a top-tier score.

• One review (2025-06-05) contains no text — only a 5-star rating. This was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• One review (2025-05-10) also contains no text — only a 5-star rating. Also excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several reviews use very similar generic praise language ('professional, knowledgeable, friendly, prompt') which may reflect coached or templated responses, though most include specific technician names and job details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 (8 reviews on the same date) is unusual and warrants mild scrutiny, though the reviews vary in detail and specificity.
• Three pricing-related negative reviews (1-star and 3-star) describe billing disputes, price gouging concerns, and lack of transparency — these are substantive complaints that meaningfully lower the pricing dimension score.
• One 1-star review (2025-01-10) describes a no-call/no-show after multiple contacts — a serious project completion failure.
• One 1-star review (2025-05-10) cites a language barrier and lack of emergency materials — a professionalism and readiness concern.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (2018–2022). These were included but given reduced weight relative to 2024–2025 reviews per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (50 total, 49 with usable data) spanning multiple years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making the overall score HIGH confidence — however, the pricing dimension reflects genuine and recurring concerns that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.