Find Nearby Plumbers In Athens-Clarke County, Georgia

Double D Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for promptness, courtesy, and friendly demeanor across multiple reviews. Pricing is a mixed signal: several reviews highlight exceptional value and honest estimates, but one customer reported feeling overcharged, creating uncertainty around fair pricing practices. Project completion is solid with evidence of thorough work and follow-through, including proactive inspections and advice. Technical experience is evident but mentioned in only 2 reviews. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects reliable service with some pricing concerns that warrant caution.

• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with no text content (2016 and 2013) — these cannot be analyzed and are excluded from scoring
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (5 of 7 reviews predate 2020); only 1 recent review from 2021 provides current-state data
• Pricing dimension shows conflicting signals: strong positive mentions of value and honesty, but one explicit complaint of overcharging — suggests inconsistent pricing practices or customer perception variance
• Limited recent data makes it difficult to assess current service quality; company practices may have changed since 2012–2019 reviews

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent reviews (only 1 from past 3 years) and conflicting pricing feedback; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate but not robust evidence across dimensions.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for courtesy, politeness, and responsiveness across multiple reviews. Technical skill and workmanship quality are well-documented with positive outcomes on drain clearing, pressure tank installation, and bathroom additions. Pricing is generally characterized as reasonable and fair, though limited explicit detail on transparency. Project completion shows mixed signals: several jobs were completed promptly and to satisfaction, but one recent review (May 2024) alleges failure to complete work and subcontracting concerns, which significantly impacts this dimension. The stark contrast between the May 2024 one-star review and six positive reviews from 2023 and earlier raises concerns about consistency or potential service deterioration.

• CRITICAL: One recent one-star review (May 2024) makes serious allegations including drug use, overpricing, subcontracting without disclosure, and job abandonment. This directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive historical pattern and suggests either a significant service failure or a potential fake negative review. This requires investigation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from mid-2023 or earlier. Only one review is from 2024 (the negative one). The 6+ month gap between the last positive review (July 2023) and the recent negative review (May 2024) makes it difficult to assess current service quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several reviews use similar phrasing patterns ('very pleased,' 'very professional,' 'very courteous') and lack specific technical details. However, they are not identical enough to definitively flag as fake, and the May 2024 negative review provides some counterbalance.
• LIMITED PROJECT COMPLETION DATA: Only 3 reviews explicitly mention job completion or timeliness. The May 2024 review alleges incomplete work, which is a serious red flag for this critical dimension.

This score should be treated with caution due to the recent serious allegations in the May 2024 review, the age of most positive reviews, and limited sample size. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects historical performance, but current reliability is questionable pending clarification of the recent complaint.

Justin receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism and experience, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling him professional, knowledgeable, and thorough. Pricing is mentioned favorably in a handful of reviews, with one detailed account describing transparent advice and fair pricing. Project completion is referenced in a moderate number of reviews, with one reviewer noting a multi-year track record of completed jobs ranging from minor repairs to water heater installation. However, the overall score is tempered by the small total review count, the concentration of reviews around a single date cluster in June 2020, and the age of most reviews — only one review falls within the past 12 months relative to a mid-2023 reference point.

• REVIEW CLUSTERING: Six of ten reviews are dated June 2–6, 2020 — an unusually tight cluster that may indicate solicited or incentivized reviews rather than organic feedback over time.
• GENERIC LANGUAGE: Several reviews ('He is the man for the job.', 'Great helpful and awesome.', 'On time and very professional') are extremely brief and lack specific detail, which is consistent with low-effort or potentially solicited reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only one review (August 2022) falls within the past three years. The majority are from 2020–2021, meaning recent performance is largely unknown.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: Every review is rated 5.0 with no variation, which combined with the clustering and generic language warrants caution about authenticity of the review set.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution — while the substantive reviews do support a competent and professional contractor, the tight date clustering, uniformly perfect ratings, and prevalence of vague one-line reviews raise authenticity concerns, and the lack of recent reviews means current performance cannot be reliably assessed.

C and S Plumbing has a generally positive track record across most dimensions, with strong marks for responsiveness, communication, and follow-through — multiple reviewers noted callbacks honored, punctual arrivals, and cleanup after work. However, pricing is a recurring concern: at least three reviewers explicitly called the contractor expensive or pricey, and one highly detailed 1-star review describes a serious billing dispute involving two hours of charged labor for a Home Depot run, along with a threatening demand to 'pay up or I'll pull it all out,' which significantly drags down the professionalism and pricing scores. Experience and workmanship are generally praised, with one reviewer noting Clarence is a master plumber who delivers high-quality results. The single negative review, while old (2004), is specific, credible, and serious enough to warrant meaningful score reductions in professionalism and pricing.

• 4 reviews contain only 'unknown' or 'See above' as text — these provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews are significantly outdated: 12 of 15 reviews are from 2018 or earlier, with 10 predating 2015. Only 1 review is from the past 3 years (2022). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• The 1-star review from 2004 describes a serious professionalism and billing ethics violation — threatening to remove installed work unless paid — which is a significant red flag even accounting for its age.
• Multiple reviewers independently flagged pricing as high or expensive, suggesting this is a consistent pattern rather than an isolated complaint.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and tone, and include one negative review, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while there are enough reviews to calculate a score, the overwhelming majority are more than 5 years old, limiting confidence in how well this score reflects the contractor's current performance.

Matt's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians (particularly Jake, CJ, Daniel, and Matt) offset by serious communication failures, scheduling problems, and pricing disputes. While many customers praise workmanship quality and problem-solving ability, numerous reviews document missed appointments, ignored callbacks, and poor office responsiveness. Pricing complaints are substantial, with customers reporting charges 2-3x market rates and feeling overcharged. The company performs better on direct service delivery but struggles with administrative follow-through and customer service protocols.

• SIGNIFICANT PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document failure to return phone calls, missed appointments, and poor scheduling communication—this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, hidden charges, or unfair pricing. Examples include $285 for a $100 disposal installation, $6,500 for sewer line work (customer later learned was 3x market rate), and $225 pre-installation charges. This undermines the 'fair price' claims in positive reviews.
• AMERICAN HOME SHIELD PATTERN: Many negative reviews involve AHS warranty work. While some customers acknowledge AHS complications, multiple reviews suggest Matt's Plumbing may prioritize warranty company relationships over customer satisfaction (e.g., denying claims without proper diagnosis, delayed callbacks after AHS payment received).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between highly skilled technicians (Jake, CJ, Daniel, Matt) and poor service from others (Devin, unnamed technician who dropped toilet). Suggests inconsistent hiring/training.
• DAMAGE INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews document property damage (dropped toilet causing tile mark, pressure regulator explosion flooding garage, caulking work left incomplete). Company denied responsibility in at least one case.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2016-2018 (older), while many positive reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent). This could indicate improvement over time, but also suggests older complaints may reflect past practices. However, the May 2024 review shows current scheduling/communication problems persist.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2023 are generic in praise ('very professional,' 'great company') with minimal specific detail, though not identical. The concentration of 5-star reviews in 2023 vs. mixed reviews in earlier years warrants caution.

This WW Score of 71.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While based on 40 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions, the company exhibits extreme inconsistency: exceptional technician performance undermined by systemic administrative failures, significant pricing disputes, and documented communication breakdowns. Recent reviews (2023-2024) are more positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the May 2024 negative review indicates core issues persist. Customers should expect variable service quality and should verify pricing in writing before committing.

Larry (Bridges Plumbing) receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism and project completion, with multiple reviewers highlighting his promptness in returning calls, accommodating scheduling needs, and following through on jobs to completion. Pricing is noted as fair and competitive in two reviews, with one reviewer specifically mentioning transparent, honest billing practices including not charging for extra work. Workmanship quality is supported by a few reviews noting he had the right parts on hand, correctly diagnosed issues, and delivered results as promised. However, all reviews are significantly dated — the most recent is from 2018 and the majority are from 2011–2013 — which substantially limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• ALL reviews are older than 1 year — the most recent review is from October 2018 (6+ years ago) and the majority are from 2011–2013. This score should NOT be treated as representative of current performance.
• One review contains only 'unknown' as the review text and provides no usable data. It was excluded from scoring.
• Small sample size of only 6 usable reviews limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied language suggesting they are likely genuine.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the extremely dated review pool (most reviews are 10+ years old), a small sample size of 6 usable reviews, and the complete absence of any recent feedback to confirm whether current service quality matches historical performance.