Find Nearby Plumbers In Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia

Burnley Sewer and Drain earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised attribute — dozens of reviewers specifically called out courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name. Pricing was consistently described as reasonable and transparent, with upfront quotes mentioned in multiple reviews. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by three notable negative reviews: one customer was charged full price after technicians broke a pipe and left it exposed, another was charged twice after Burnley failed to locate a septic tank that the health department later found, and a third described a pump being replaced unnecessarily. Experience scores are high overall, with multiple reviewers praising diagnostic skill and technical knowledge, though the failed tank-location incident and the unnecessary pump replacement introduce meaningful doubt. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with a strong track record, modestly penalized for a small but credible cluster of service failures.

• CLUSTERING WARNING: A large number of reviews (approximately 18) share the exact same date of 2024-06-09. This is statistically unusual and may indicate a batch of reviews solicited or submitted on the same day. These reviews tend to be shorter, more generic, and lack specific job details, which raises authenticity concerns. Confidence in the aggregate score is slightly reduced as a result.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Several of the 2024-06-09 reviews use near-identical phrasing patterns ('highly recommend', 'will definitely use again', 'great service') with no job-specific details, names, or context. While not conclusive, this pattern is consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — PIPE DAMAGE (2024-06-21, 2-star): Technicians broke a pipe while attempting a repair, acknowledged they 'opened a can of worms,' and left the pipe exposed while still charging full price. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — FAILED TANK LOCATION (2024-04-28, 1-star): Burnley failed to locate a septic tank, causing the customer significant distress and nearly unnecessary major expense. They then charged full price for the follow-up visit without offering any remedy. The health department ultimately located the tank. This reflects both an experience and professionalism concern.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — UNNECESSARY PUMP REPLACEMENT (2024-06-09, 1-star): One reviewer states Burnley replaced a pump that did not need replacing. No further detail provided, but this is a credible experience and integrity concern.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — OWNER CONDUCT (2019-02-21, 1-star): Reviewer reports the owner called them a liar via email and the phone receptionist said 'I don't have time for you.' Older review but relevant to professionalism pattern.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — OWNER CONDUCT (2018-05-02, 3-star): Long-term customer reported the owner told her to 'find someone else' when she asked reasonable questions, and noted differential treatment based on gender. Older review but adds to a pattern of owner communication issues.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024, which is positive for recency weighting. However, the 2024-06-09 date clustering reduces confidence in those specific reviews. Reviews from 2016–2019 are given reduced weight per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set with strong recency, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by a suspicious cluster of same-day reviews with generic content, three credible negative reviews describing distinct service failures, and a documented pattern of owner communication issues — the score of 79.4 should be treated as a reasonable but cautious estimate of this contractor's typical performance.

Regal Plumbing scores strongly across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — nearly every reviewer mentioned punctuality, courteous communication, and a positive customer-facing attitude. Pricing transparency was highlighted in multiple reviews, with one reviewer specifically appreciating a worst-case-scenario quote that came in under budget, and another calling the service 'extremely affordable.' Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing problems found and fixed quickly, a warranty honored past its date, and no mentions of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience and workmanship were affirmed across several reviews, including handling a described 'difficult situation' with finesse and correctly diagnosing issues on the first visit. The overall score is tempered by the small total review count and the fact that five of seven reviews are more than four years old.

• Only 7 total reviews — small sample size limits statistical reliability of the WW Score.
• 5 of 7 reviews are dated 2016 to 2019, making them 5 to 8+ years old. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2024). Recency weighting significantly reduces confidence in current performance.
• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• No negative experiences, complaints, or constructive criticism appear in any review. This may reflect genuine quality but could also reflect a non-representative sample of customers who chose to leave reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and predominantly dated review set — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives strong and consistent praise for professionalism, with numerous reviewers citing punctuality, courteous behavior, clear communication, and named technicians like Joey, Danny, Ken, and Raymond being repeatedly commended. Project completion scores well, with most jobs described as resolved promptly and thoroughly, including a notable case where the team returned after a year and a half to address a follow-up issue. Experience is rated highly across the board, with technicians demonstrating diagnostic skill, technical knowledge, and the ability to explain problems clearly to customers. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple reviewers explicitly called out costs as excessive, with specific complaints including $387 for 45 minutes of work, $1,000+ for a 30-minute job, $350 for 25 minutes, and $268.50 for parts worth $20 — dragging the pricing dimension down considerably. One older review also flagged a failure to provide emergency service as advertised, which is a notable project completion concern, though it is from 2018.

• 8 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One 1-star rating with no text (2025-05-10) was noted but could not be analyzed for specific dimension impact.
• Pricing complaints are consistent and specific across multiple independent reviews spanning 2018–2025, indicating a systemic concern rather than isolated incidents.
• A 2018 review alleges false advertising of emergency services and a refusal to respond to a burst pipe for 3 days — a serious project completion and professionalism flag. This is older data but worth noting.
• A 2017 review alleges a price estimate of $2,160 for a job competitors completed for under half that amount, suggesting possible price gouging on certain job types.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (2016–2021) and were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2025, which is a positive recency signal.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews reference specific technician names, job types, and dollar amounts, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews with usable content across a broad date range, with strong recency in 2025; the score is reasonably reliable but the pricing dimension — consistently flagged as a concern — meaningfully suppresses the overall result and should be taken seriously by prospective customers.

Express Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, project completion, and technical experience. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and skilled workmanship, with many reviews praising specific technicians by name and highlighting professional demeanor. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple complaints about hidden charges, inflated estimates, and perceived overcharging relative to work performed. While the majority of recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, the company has a persistent pattern of pricing disputes and occasional service failures that prevent a higher score.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-04-07 contain identical text praising Jose Lopez with suspiciously generic language and no specific details. This appears to be duplicate/fabricated content.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 32 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern—hidden trip charges ($125 undisclosed fee), inflated estimates, charges for minimal work ($125 for tightening a sink connection), and disputes over quoted vs. actual costs. This is a material weakness.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews describe no-shows, delayed callbacks (2-4 hours on emergency calls), and failure to honor 24/7 emergency service claims. Some reviews note the company's responsiveness depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• MULTIPLE NEGATIVE REVIEWS FROM DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS: At least 15 distinct 1-star reviews document serious issues (misdiagnosis, incomplete work, threats to elderly parents, refusal to refund deposits, poor follow-up). These are not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2007-2015) contain more detailed complaints. This suggests either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Multiple reviews reference owner 'Nick' or 'Igor' with complaints about lack of accountability, refusal to reimburse, and dismissive behavior toward customers with legitimate grievances.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain no text or only 1-2 words (e.g., 'Excelente serbicio', 'Loved it', blank), all rated 5-star. These lack substantive evidence and reduce data quality.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for recent work (2024-2025) but with significant caution regarding pricing transparency and service consistency. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in execution, but the persistent pattern of pricing disputes, hidden charges, and occasional service failures indicates systemic issues in business practices. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm all fees upfront, and verify service guarantees before engaging. The score reflects strong execution quality offset by legitimate concerns about honesty and follow-through on commitments.

Stewart Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on schedule and callbacks honored. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about rates substantially above market average—often 2-3x competitor pricing. While the company delivers quality work and professional service, the high cost structure creates substantial customer dissatisfaction that materially impacts overall trustworthiness despite strong execution on core plumbing services.

• PRICING PATTERN: 28 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. 15+ reviews cite prices as 'outrageous,' 'too expensive,' or 'double/triple market rate.' This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• PRICE-QUALITY DISCONNECT: Multiple reviews acknowledge good work quality but express strong objection to pricing (e.g., 'great service but too expensive,' 'quality work at unreasonable prices'). This suggests pricing, not competence, drives negative sentiment.
• SERVICE CALL FEES: Multiple complaints about $75-$89 diagnostic/trip fees charged even when customer declines work. Several reviews note competitors offer free estimates.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Several reviews mention aggressive upselling of 'VIP packages' and membership programs, sometimes before addressing the primary issue.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 12 one-star reviews (2024-2015) predominantly cite pricing abuse, poor accountability for failed work, and unprofessional behavior. Notable: one review alleges discrimination based on property location (Frazer); another describes failed repair with refusal to take responsibility.
• FAILED WORK ACCOUNTABILITY: 3 reviews describe incomplete or failed repairs (tub drain gasket glued but leak persisted; faucet soldering damaged internal washer; camera inspection went up vent instead of drain). Company response was poor in at least 2 cases.
• RECENCY BIAS CONSIDERATION: Most recent reviews (2025, late 2024) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2022-2015) contain more critical detail and pricing complaints. This may indicate review selection bias or improved recent performance, but cannot be confirmed.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain minimal detail ('Great crew!', 'Excellent service', 'Highly recommend') with no specifics. While not necessarily fake, they provide limited evidentiary value.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 13 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text. These cannot be analyzed for dimension-specific evidence and suggest possible review platform artifacts.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence (HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension significantly depresses the overall score and reflects genuine customer dissatisfaction documented across 22+ years of reviews. The company delivers quality work and professional service, but pricing practices create substantial trust issues that should weigh heavily in contractor selection decisions. Customers should expect to pay premium rates and should obtain multiple quotes before committing.

Coopers Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers praising responsiveness, communication, and courteous staff across many years of reviews. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple customers noting fair or below-expected costs and no hidden charges, though the sample is smaller. Project completion is solid overall but is meaningfully dragged down by one credible 1-star review describing unfinished work after upfront payment and a pattern of broken commitments, which cannot be ignored. Experience scores are generally positive, with reviewers citing knowledgeable and skilled work, but one 2-star review raises a legitimate concern about a misdiagnosis and a failure to follow through with a promised estimate, introducing a note of caution.

• One credible 1-star review (2016-12-20) explicitly describes incomplete work, broken scheduling promises, and a concern that upfront payment reduced prioritization — this is a meaningful negative signal for project completion.
• One credible 2-star review (2013-08-14) describes a misdiagnosis recommending unnecessary full pipe replacement and a failure to follow up with a promised estimate — this is a meaningful negative signal for experience.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 14 of 21) are older than 12 months from a 2024 analysis date, and most are from 2021 or earlier. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and late 2023). Recency of data is limited.
• One review (2016-01-19) contains only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and has been excluded from usable data as it provides no scorable information.
• Several positive reviews are generic in phrasing (e.g., 'highly recommend,' 'great service') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in the highest-end scores. However, enough reviews contain specific details to avoid a fake review flag.

The WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given 20 usable reviews with dimension-level data, but should be interpreted with caution due to the age of most reviews, two credible negative reviews that reveal real failure patterns, and only two reviews from the past 12 months to confirm current performance.