Find Nearby Plumbers In Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

Reliable Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and successful job completions — particularly for water heater replacements, leak repairs, and emergency calls. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 20–22 reviews) describe serious concerns including incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, warranty denials after poor workmanship, rude owner interactions, and pricing disputes involving non-itemized invoices and unexpected charges. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing overquoting, lack of transparency, and charges inconsistent with initial quotes. Project completion is also dragged down by several credible accounts of work left unfinished, recurring leaks after paid repairs, and technicians who lacked the skill to complete assigned jobs. The overall score reflects a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and many capable technicians, offset by a persistent pattern of quality control and owner-level customer service failures.

• Approximately 35 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count and cannot be used as evidence of quality.
• Several reviews appear to originate from different geographic markets (Charlotte NC, Baton Rouge LA, El Paso TX) suggesting this may be a shared business name across unrelated companies — scores may reflect mixed entities rather than a single contractor.
• A recurring pattern of negative reviews specifically names the owner 'Raymond' or 'Ramon' as rude, condescending, or dishonest in pricing disputes — this is a consistent and credible signal across multiple independent reviewers spanning 2013–2025.
• Multiple reviews describe warranty denials after failed repairs, with the company refusing callbacks or not answering phones — this is a serious project completion red flag.
• Pricing complaints include: non-itemized receipts, charges inconsistent with initial quotes, and alleged price gouging on water heater installations — these are consistent across multiple reviewers and time periods.
• Some older reviews (2005–2016) may not reflect current business practices and were given reduced weight in scoring; the majority of scoring weight was placed on reviews from 2020 onward.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though the volume of brief generic 5-star reviews (e.g. 'Professional job. Well done', 'Great service as always') with no specifics warrants mild caution — these were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset (155 total, ~120 with usable content) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and recurring negative patterns around pricing transparency, warranty honoring, and owner conduct that meaningfully offset the many positive technician-level experiences.

Brothers Plumbing earns strong marks for technical skill and workmanship, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians who correctly diagnosed complex problems, completed multi-part jobs thoroughly, and went above and beyond expectations. Professionalism scores are solid but meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, unanswered calls, and at least one incident of intimidating behavior and a bait-and-switch on pricing. Project completion is similarly mixed: many jobs were finished quickly and well, but at least 6 distinct reviews describe appointments where the company simply never showed up or never called back, which is a serious reliability concern. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable by most reviewers, but two reviews cite unexpected charges or prices higher than quoted, preventing a higher score. Overall, the business demonstrates genuine capability when it shows up, but the no-show and communication failure pattern is consistent enough across multiple years to represent a real and documented risk.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 reviews across multiple years (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2025) explicitly describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or never returning calls. This is not isolated and represents a systemic reliability issue.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review (2021-04-30) describes being quoted $50 for a part but charged $130, and another (2019-09-05) describes not being given a price before work started and being charged more than expected. These are credible specific complaints.
• INTIMIDATION COMPLAINT: One review (2021-04-30) describes a technician named Chris becoming threatening and refusing to leave the home during a billing dispute. This is a serious professionalism flag.
• INCOMPLETE/BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• INVALID REVIEW INCLUDED IN DATASET: One review (2017-12-07) explicitly states the reviewer never used Brothers Plumbing and used a different company. This review was excluded from all scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are generally positive, but the no-show complaint recurs as recently as May 2025, indicating the reliability issue has not been fully resolved.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two reviews dated 2024-07-29 and 2024-08-13 contain nearly identical text praising 'Nate' for a water main replacement. These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice. Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several short reviews ('Great service', 'Good person on time good price', 'Best Plumbers Ever!!!') lack specific detail and were given reduced weight in scoring, though not flagged as fake individually given the overall review diversity.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning multiple years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a well-documented and recurring pattern of no-shows and communication failures that meaningfully undermines the otherwise strong workmanship reputation.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality and responsiveness across multiple reviews, earning an 88 score. Project completion is solid at 90, with customers reporting jobs finished on time and follow-through on callbacks. However, pricing presents a significant concern: one customer reported a $300 charge for a 5-10 minute PVC connection job, which appears excessive and raises fairness questions, pulling the pricing score down to 60. Experience is moderately strong at 85 based on technical knowledge demonstrated in mobile home plumbing work. The WW Score of 81.3 reflects good overall performance tempered by pricing transparency issues.

• PRICING CONCERN: Review from 2022-12-04 reports $300 charge for approximately 5-10 minutes of work (connecting two PVC pieces). Customer expressed frustration about the cost relative to time spent. This single data point significantly impacts pricing confidence.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two of four reviews are from 2019 (5+ years old). Only one recent review from 2024 and one from 2022. Limited current performance data.
• FIRST REVIEW AUTHENTICITY QUESTION: The 2024-01-23 review contains excessive punctuation and exclamation marks, generic praise without specific details, and references a service date from 2004 (20 years prior) mixed with current gratitude. This appears potentially fabricated or heavily embellished and should be weighted cautiously.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Recommend collecting more recent reviews before making major decisions.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews), significant recency gaps (2 reviews from 2019), and one potentially unreliable review. The pricing concern is based on limited data (1-2 mentions) but appears credible and warrants direct inquiry. Overall confidence is MODERATE at best.

Martin's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness across 9 reviews. Pricing shows mixed signals: most reviews cite fair or good value, but one detailed 2018 complaint reveals a significant bid-to-final-cost discrepancy ($8,000 quoted vs. $21,000 final for a bathroom remodel), raising concerns about transparency. Project completion data is limited to 2 mentions, both positive but insufficient for robust confidence. Experience/workmanship is rated well across 4 mentions. The company's score is anchored by strong professionalism but tempered by pricing transparency concerns and limited project completion evidence.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One detailed 2018 review documents a major bid-to-final-cost discrepancy ($8,000 estimate vs. $21,000 final charge for bathroom remodel). Another 2022 review flags $175 permit charges when city permits cost $42, representing a $133 markup. These suggest potential pricing opacity on complex projects.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 3 of 12 reviews are older than 5 years (2006, 2016, 2019-2020). Most recent reviews (2023-2024) are positive, but the 2018 bathroom remodel complaint is substantive and detailed, not dismissible.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: One review (2016-05-16) contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating—this appears to be spam or placeholder data and was excluded from scoring.
• LIMITED PROJECT COMPLETION DATA: Only 2 reviews explicitly mention job completion/follow-through. Most reviews address service calls or simple repairs, not complex projects. The one detailed complex project (bathroom remodel) ended in significant dispute.
• CONFIDENCE MODERATION: Project completion score (65.0) is based on only 2 mentions and includes one positive emergency response but lacks evidence on larger renovation projects.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. Strong professionalism ratings are well-supported (9 mentions), but pricing concerns from detailed complaints and limited project completion data (2 mentions) create uncertainty about performance on complex, higher-value jobs. Recent reviews are positive, but the 2018 bathroom remodel dispute suggests risk on larger projects without written, itemized quotes.

Dr. Rooter demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for responsiveness, punctuality, and problem-solving ability. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers citing high costs and one detailed complaint about overcharging. A critical issue is the company's poor responsiveness to communication (emails unanswered, 24/7 claims disputed) and one serious incident involving failure to clean up water damage caused by their work. The large volume of recent 5-star reviews with minimal detail and generic praise raises concerns about review authenticity, though older reviews provide more substantive evidence of quality work.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 20 recent reviews (no dates provided) contain suspiciously similar language praising individual technicians (Daniel, Tim, Eli) with nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'quick,' 'highly recommend'). These reviews lack specific details about actual work performed and read as templated praise.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed, substantive reviews are from 2005-2016. Recent undated reviews are generic. This temporal split suggests either improved service with poor documentation or artificially inflated recent ratings.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: One 2019 review documents company refusing to clean up 40 gallons of sewage backup they caused, with owner Shannon explicitly stating 'we are plumbers not a clean up crew.' This represents a serious professionalism and accountability failure.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2017, 2024) report unanswered calls, emails, and false 24/7 availability claims. One 2024 review alleges company is 'run by Felons and Thiefs' and creates fake Gmail accounts for reviews.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Significant variation in pricing feedback. Some customers report 'hard to match' prices and discounts; others report overcharging ($200+ diagnostic fees, $900+ quotes). One 2024 review explicitly states overpricing compared to competitors.
• RESPONSE TIME CLAIMS DISPUTED: While many reviews praise quick response, at least two reviews (2014, 2017) document failures to meet advertised 24/7 response times.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While older reviews (2005-2016) provide credible evidence of quality work and professionalism, the recent flood of generic 5-star reviews with identical phrasing and no dates suggests artificial rating inflation. The documented communication failures, pricing complaints, and one serious service failure (sewage cleanup refusal) are not offset by the suspicious recent reviews. A score of 78.2 is conservative and appropriate given these conflicts, but the true reliability of this company is questionable—recommend requesting references and verifying recent work quality independently.