Find Nearby Plumbers In Atlanta, Georgia

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar 'All About Plumbing' or 'Allison Plumbing' names, making direct attribution difficult, but the overall picture is a contractor with a strong positive majority offset by a meaningful minority of serious complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down by recurring patterns of no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to return calls — issues mentioned explicitly across dozens of negative reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing receives a moderate-to-low score because while many customers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable cluster of reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, charges added without consent, overcharging seniors, and prices that jumped significantly from quoted amounts. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs are described as completed well, but multiple reviews describe abandoned work, callbacks not honored, problems made worse, and in at least two cases customers had to take legal action or dispute charges. Experience scores highest because the technical skill of individual plumbers is frequently praised, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnosis and quality workmanship — though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnosis, broken pipes caused by the plumber, and failed repairs.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to cover several distinct businesses operating under similar names including 'All About Plumbing,' 'All In A Day Plumbing,' 'Allison Plumbing,' and variations. Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews about Ray Buchanan dated 2023-03-25, two identical reviews about the 'ALL ABOUT NOT CARING' experience dated 2024-05-27, two identical reviews about the Troy water hammering job, two identical reviews about the water filtration estimate with Xzavia). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text content and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in high volume is a mild fake-review signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2022 or earlier, including many from 2019 and before. Older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting persistent quality inconsistency.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege fraud, unauthorized credit card charges, charging for work not performed, referring customers to fraudulent contractors, and in one case a customer reports winning a court judgment against the company. These are not scored but significantly reduce trust in the overall profile.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe scheduled appointments where no plumber arrived and no call was made. This is a persistent and documented pattern affecting the professionalism score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The large volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent,' 'Professional,' 'Fast reliable service') alongside blank-text 5-star entries raises moderate concern about review padding. Confidence is not reduced to LOW given the large volume of detailed genuine reviews, but the inflated positive count should be noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but moderate trust reliability due to the presence of multiple business entities in the dataset, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and serious misconduct allegations that suggest the true score for any single contractor may differ materially from this aggregate.

Assured Comfort receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and technician demeanor, with dozens of reviews praising individual techs by name for punctuality, communication, and courtesy. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern — multiple detailed negative reviews across many years describe significant parts markups (e.g., $400 for a $38 part, $221 for a $50 capacitor, $300 for a $25 part), hidden charges, and refusal to provide itemized invoices, dragging the pricing score down substantially. Project completion is mixed: most routine maintenance visits are completed satisfactorily, but several reviews describe incomplete work, warranty disputes, botched installations requiring multiple callbacks, and at least one case of abandoned or improperly finished plumbing work. Experience scores moderately well overall given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is tempered by credible accounts of misdiagnosis and unnecessary upselling of replacement units when cheaper repairs were sufficient.

• STRONG FAKE REVIEW SIGNAL: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 and 2025-05-07 appear to be duplicated verbatim. For example, the review praising 'Michael Simmons' with the 2-6 PM service window story appears word-for-word on both 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06. Similarly, 'Cory, was very professional and kind.' appears identically on both 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06. Multiple other short reviews (e.g., 'Michael Simmons Jr did a good job for my maintenance.', 'Michael Simmons jr did a good job', 'Very satisfied and informed...', 'The service', 'Michael Simmons Jr was wonderful.') appear on both date clusters with identical text. This is a strong indicator of review duplication or artificial inflation.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of recent reviews (2025) are extremely short, generic, or blank (rating only, no text), which inflates the star average without providing substantive data. Blank reviews with 5-star ratings were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PRICING CONCERNS ARE SYSTEMIC AND MULTI-YEAR: Negative pricing reviews span from 2014 through 2025, suggesting this is not an isolated issue but a persistent business practice of significant parts markups and lack of pricing transparency.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviews describe being told they needed expensive new units or major repairs, only to have a second-opinion company fix the issue for a fraction of the cost (e.g., $16 relay vs. $1000 blower replacement; $167 fix vs. $5000 new unit recommendation; $167 fix vs. $400 freon charge). This is a meaningful pattern.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews describe warranty coverage being denied or disputed for parts and systems installed by Assured Comfort, including a 2024 review about a 2017 Lennox installation and a 2022 review about dehumidifiers never properly fixed.
• PLUMBING SERVICE QUALITY: Several detailed 1-star reviews specifically call out plumbing service as substandard, including a major sewer line job with serious workmanship failures, unauthorized changes to water pressure, and poor follow-through by management.
• MANY REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT: Approximately 30+ reviews consist only of a star rating with no text content ('unknown', '.', blank, or single-word entries). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of review duplication in the most recent date clusters, a persistent multi-year pattern of pricing complaints, and credible misdiagnosis allegations — the true score for pricing and project completion reliability may be lower than reflected here.

Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Roswell presents a deeply split picture across its review history. Recent reviews from 2024-2025 are overwhelmingly positive, with numerous customers praising named technicians like Ricky, Marc, Andrew, Luke, Jason, and Daniel for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and skilled workmanship on complex jobs including sewer line replacements, water heater installs, and leak repairs. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2016-2022) documents serious recurring failures: no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, rude customer service staff, incomplete work, warranty disputes, and pricing that multiple reviewers described as significantly above market rate or deceptive. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple detailed complaints about lack of transparency, hidden fees, charges for incomplete work, and quotes described as two to four times higher than competitors. Project completion is also dragged down by several credible accounts of jobs left unfinished, return visits required, and refusals to honor warranties.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews are exact word-for-word duplicates — 'Great job and service! Marc was professional, on time and able to fix our plumbing issues.' (dated 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30) and the full Ricky sewer line replacement review (dated 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30). These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW: The review 'I can not be a happier person since ive associated myself with this company. I jason johnson am super excited everytime i see that big red van with the friendly man.' (2018-08-31) appears to be written by the technician himself (Jason Johnson) rather than a genuine customer. This review was excluded from scoring.
• 35 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY SPLIT: Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are predominantly 4-5 stars with specific, credible detail. Reviews from 2016-2022 contain a high concentration of 1-star complaints about scheduling failures, incomplete work, rude staff, and overcharging. The business appears to have improved significantly in recent years, but the historical record meaningfully depresses scores for pricing and project completion.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged significantly above market rate, receiving non-itemized invoices, being billed for incomplete work, and encountering undisclosed fees. One reviewer documented a $10,000 quote for work completed by a competitor for $4,200. Another described charges of $348.60 for a pop-up assembly install. These are not isolated complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple credible reviews describe work that was not completed, required 3-4 return visits, or failed within days of service. One reviewer paid over $2,400 across three visits with the line never cleared. Another paid $530 for a sewer clearing that failed within 5 days. A water heater installation required 3 visits and the old unit was left hidden in a fire escape.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE / MANAGEMENT CONCERNS: Several reviews specifically name office staff (Barbara, Stephanie, Carol) and a manager (Tim Rice) as rude, unresponsive, or dishonest. One reviewer described being told corporate contact information was unavailable. These systemic issues affect the professionalism score.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence given the large review volume (155 total, 120 with usable text), but consumers should weight the pricing and project completion scores carefully — the negative reviews in those dimensions are detailed, specific, and credible, and the strong recent positive reviews, while genuine, do not fully erase a documented pattern of serious service failures in prior years.

Plumbworks earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviewers praising named technicians — Andrew, Jerome, Terrance, Kim, Spencer, Alex, Eric, and others — for punctuality, communication, friendliness, and technical skill. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished efficiently and thoroughly, though a handful of older reviews cite incomplete diagnoses, abandoned work mid-job, and a recurring problem being 'fixed' only temporarily. The most significant drag on the overall score is pricing: a substantial and consistent pattern of complaints spanning from 2010 through 2024 describes charges that reviewers found to be dramatically above market rate — with specific examples including $866 for two hours of labor, $650 for a $70 part, $1,251 to install a water heater, and $400+ per hour for routine work. These pricing complaints are too numerous, specific, and spread across too many years to dismiss, and they materially reduce the Price Friendly score. The company's recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive but show strong signs of duplication, which limits their individual weight.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT — HIGH CONFIDENCE: At least 10 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates within days of each other. The lengthy 'Nobel Prize' Andrew Wexler review appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06. The 'Excellent service! Kim kept me informed' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06. The 'Another great job by Andrew' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06. The 'Terrance from Plumbworks did an excellent job repairing my 1980s sink valve' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06. The Eric/Jerome/Andrew/Chase multi-technician review appears verbatim on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05. The 'Terrance is an excellent plumber' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05. The 'Alex was skilled and worked efficiently' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05. This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or a platform duplication artifact. Duplicate reviews were counted only once per unique text.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — PERSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: At least 18 distinct reviews across 2010–2024 cite pricing as a serious concern, with specific dollar amounts provided. Complaints include: $866 for two hours of labor (toilet + hose bib), $650 for a $70 part, $1,251 to install a water heater, $455 for a 45-minute drain clearing on a 92-year-old woman, $400+/hour labor rates, $600 higher than competitor quotes, and repeated failure to provide estimates over the phone. This is a structural and recurring business practice issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS IN POSITIVE REVIEWS: The overwhelming majority of detailed positive reviews are dated 2025, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2016–2024. This temporal split may reflect genuine improvement, selective review solicitation, or review manipulation. Scores were weighted accordingly but the older negative pricing reviews were not discarded as they reflect a documented pattern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND MISDIAGNOSIS — MULTIPLE INSTANCES: Several older reviews (2016–2019) describe technicians misdiagnosing problems, leaving jobs incomplete, or abandoning work mid-project. One review describes a technician walking off the job. Another describes a shower leak being misdiagnosed, requiring a second company to fix it correctly. One review describes a sump pump installation followed by the company abandoning the customer during a hurricane emergency. These are serious project completion concerns.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contained no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data per scoring rules.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER CONCERN: Two related reviews (1-star, late 2024) describe what appears to be price exploitation of a 92-year-old woman — $454–$455 for a 45-minute drain clearing. This is a significant ethical flag and was factored into the pricing score.

The WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence given the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews in the 2025 batch, a persistent and well-documented multi-year pricing complaint pattern, and a temporal split between overwhelmingly positive recent reviews and more mixed older ones — consumers should expect strong technical service but should obtain competing quotes before approving any work.

Plumbing Unlimited has a large base of satisfied customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Lamont, Ronnie, Emanuel, and Nick — for being professional, knowledgeable, punctual, and personable. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out affordability and value. However, the company is significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of serious project completion failures: multiple 1-star reviews describe abandoned jobs, unresolved problems after payment, missed appointments with no communication, and situations left worse than before work began. These are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years and involve different customers and job types, lending them credibility. Experience scores are mixed: while many reviewers praise technical skill, several explicitly describe incompetent work, costly mistakes, and problems that required a second company to fix.

• 11 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-08-13 and 2024-07-19) are near-identical in wording and describe the same complaint about 'Major' and a gas stove installation. This appears to be a duplicate review posted by the same customer on two dates. Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Very professional and precise work!', 'Great workers. Above and beyond.') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, they carry lower evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• The review corpus spans from 2005 to 2025. Reviews older than 2 years (pre-2023) were given reduced weight in scoring, as they may not reflect current company performance. The majority of negative reviews are concentrated in 2022–2025, suggesting possible decline in quality control over time.
• Multiple serious 1-star reviews describe the company abandoning jobs mid-project, not returning calls after payment, and leaving customers without water or functioning toilets for extended periods. These are high-severity complaints that materially suppressed the project_completion score.
• The bait-and-switch pricing complaint (2022) and the $5,000 unresolved fix complaint (2024) are significant red flags for pricing transparency and were factored into the pricing score reduction.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the presence of serious and credible project abandonment complaints across multiple recent years means prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate-risk signal and carefully vet the company before committing to large or complex jobs.

Atlanta Star Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence — particularly from named technicians like Britt, Arthur, James, and Ewan. However, pricing is a recurring and significant concern, with multiple reviewers across different years citing charges they considered excessive or non-transparent, including a hidden $150 estimate fee, $800+ disposal quotes, and $400 for a 40-minute drain job. Professionalism scores are pulled down by documented dispatching failures, a no-show incident, and an owner who went silent after a billing complaint. Project completion is generally solid but is tempered by one multi-day dispatching debacle and a two-part job that was only partially completed at time of review. One review alleges potential fraud involving a referral partner, which is a serious flag that cannot be ignored.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews across multiple years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) cite pricing as excessive or non-transparent. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• HIDDEN FEE COMPLAINT (2025): A reviewer explicitly states the dispatcher failed to disclose a $150 service fee per company policy, and the company refused to waive it despite the policy violation being on their end.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION (2024): One reviewer alleges Atlanta Star Plumbing colluded with a restoration company (Mike Hampton Restoration) to file a fraudulent $20,000 insurance claim. This is unverified but serious and cannot be dismissed.
• DISPATCHING FAILURES: A 2022 review documents a two-day scheduling breakdown with double-booking, missed appointment windows, and no proactive communication. A 2023 review documents a technician arriving over an hour late with no advance notice.
• OWNER UNRESPONSIVENESS: A 2023 reviewer attempted multiple times to resolve a billing dispute with owner Britt directly and was ignored after initial contact.
• FORMER EMPLOYEE REVIEW (2016): One 1-star review appears to be from a job applicant/interviewee rather than a customer. It raises concerns about upsell incentives and unlicensed electrical work during tankless water heater installs. This review is noted but weighted differently as it is not a customer experience.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several positive reviews lack review text (rating only, no written content) — 8 blank reviews were counted but excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: A meaningful portion of positive reviews are from 2013–2018 and carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) show a mixed picture with both strong praise and notable complaints.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in specificity, name different technicians, describe different job types, and include both positive and negative experiences. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score is based on 65 total reviews spanning over a decade, with sufficient volume for HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a persistent multi-year pricing complaint pattern, a serious unverified fraud allegation, and documented dispatching failures that suggest operational inconsistency beneath an otherwise capable technical team.