Find Nearby Plumbers In Johns Creek, Georgia

Allen Mooty Plumbing shows generally positive performance across most dimensions, with two satisfied customers praising his responsiveness, timeliness, and fair pricing. However, the third review introduces a meaningful concern around pricing transparency — a customer was charged an unexpected $50 addition to a quoted price without prior disclosure, which directly impacts both the pricing and professionalism scores. Project completion is consistently positive across all three reviews, as jobs were finished and functional in every case. Experience is supported by two reviews noting knowledgeability and expert workmanship, though the limited sample size keeps confidence low. Overall, the score is tempered by the hidden-charge complaint and the very small review pool.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• All reviews are older than 5 years (2017–2018). No recent data is available to assess current performance. Business practices may have changed.
• One review explicitly describes a pricing transparency issue — an undisclosed $50 surcharge added after the quoted price — which is a notable red flag for honesty in billing.
• Two of three reviews are generic in praise with limited specifics, though the third is detailed and credible. No strong fake review pattern detected, but sample is too small to rule out selection bias.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 5 years old, and should be considered highly preliminary — it reflects early impressions only and cannot reliably represent the contractor's current quality or consistency.

All three reviews touch on professionalism to varying degrees: two reviewers praised the contractors as professional and timely, while the first reviewer had a mixed experience — acknowledging the workers were skilled but feeling misled about the scope and duration of the job. Pricing is the most contentious dimension: the first reviewer felt strongly overcharged ($750 to install a customer-supplied toilet, with no itemized invoice), while the other two reviewers found pricing reasonable and transparent. Project completion was generally positive across all reviews — jobs were finished on time or same-day — though the first reviewer's experience of a job finishing in 1.5 hours when it was presented as a 4-hour undertaking raises a minor concern about scope misrepresentation. Experience scores moderately well, with two reviews explicitly noting skilled or knowledgeable workmanship, but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of the three reviews are dated 2017 and 2019, making them 5–7 years old. Only one review (2022) falls within a more recent window. Recency weighting heavily limits reliability.
• The three reviews appear to reference different business names or contractors (Allgood Plumbing, PL Snellville Plumbing/Mr. Ledesma), which raises the possibility that these reviews may not all belong to the same contractor entity. This could distort the score significantly.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied sentiment, and distinct writing styles, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, two of which are over 5 years old, and a potential mismatch in contractor identity across reviews — this score should not be used as a meaningful basis for hiring decisions without gathering substantially more recent review data.

Progressive Plumbing and its associated entities receive broadly positive marks for professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising named technicians such as Daniel, Victor, Marcus, Justin, and Roberto for being courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, arbitrary, or deceptive — including instances of verbal quotes being exceeded, refusal to itemize bills, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed promptly and well, there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, callbacks that were never honored, and at least one case of a job left incomplete with damage caused. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range significantly suppresses the overall score.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews reference 'San Bruno Plumbing' as the company name, while the majority reference 'Progressive Plumbing' or 'Progressive Service Company.' These may be distinct businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together, which would make the composite score unreliable.
• FAKE OR PADDING REVIEW CONCERN: At least 30+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent rating volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review for Marcus ('came on time in fact earlier than expected... cost was fair, lower than expected') appears verbatim on both 2025-05-19 and 2025-05-16. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. A significant portion of negative pricing and project completion reviews date from 2017–2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated — they appear across many years, many technicians, and many job types (water heaters, toilet repairs, faucet installs, drain clearing). This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as outliers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians performing unauthorized work, billing tenants without owner approval, leaving job sites in disarray, being rude or dismissive, and in one case potentially misusing a credit card. These are serious conduct flags.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no follow-up communication was made. This is a recurring project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing complaints, suspected entity mixing between 'Progressive Plumbing' and 'San Bruno Plumbing,' a high volume of blank filler reviews, and recurring patterns of no-shows and incomplete work that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.

Drain Masters shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive with strong professionalism and experience ratings, historical reviews reveal serious systemic issues including no-shows, incomplete work, billing disputes, and poor follow-through on callbacks. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with numerous complaints about abandoned jobs, missed appointments, and failure to return for promised follow-up work. Pricing concerns emerge in older reviews regarding overcharges and unnecessary upsells. The company appears to have improved recently, but the extensive negative history—particularly regarding accountability and reliability—significantly impacts overall trustworthiness.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Recent reviews (June 2025) show nearly identical positive language ('quick and efficient,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specificity. Multiple reviews mention the same technicians (Trevor, Ryan, Tyler) with generic praise. This clustering of 5-star reviews with repetitive phrasing suggests potential review manipulation or fake reviews.
• SEVERE HISTORICAL ISSUES: Reviews from 2014-2020 document systematic problems including: multiple no-shows, incomplete work requiring callbacks, wrong equipment installations, billing disputes, and owner defensiveness (threatening legal action against reviewers). One review documents 6 technician visits for same issue with conflicting diagnoses.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe company refusing responsibility for their errors, blaming warranty companies, or claiming technicians acted independently. Owner's text response to complaint was hostile and threatening.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and historical pattern of complaints suggests either dramatic recent improvement or review credibility issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 12 reviews explicitly mention technicians not returning for promised follow-up work or callbacks never made.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (2016-2020) document overcharging, unnecessary upsells (expansion tanks, code upgrades), and inflated labor rates compared to competitors.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the recent 2025 reviews are numerous and consistently positive, they exhibit suspicious patterns suggesting potential manipulation. The extensive historical record (2014-2020) documents serious, recurring problems with project completion, accountability, and customer service that cannot be ignored. The dramatic shift in review quality and tone between historical and recent periods is atypical and raises credibility concerns. Prospective customers should heavily weight the documented historical issues and request recent references directly rather than relying on this score alone.

TJ Plumbing shows severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion, which are the two most heavily weighted dimensions. Multiple reviews document poor communication, missed appointments, no-shows without notification, and unresponsiveness to callbacks—patterns that appear across different time periods. Project completion issues include incomplete work, refusal to correct mistakes, and failure to follow customer specifications. While some reviews praise technical skill and fair pricing on successful jobs, the frequency and severity of negative experiences substantially outweigh positive ones. The company demonstrates inconsistent reliability and customer service.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of no-shows and missed appointments documented in at least 4 separate reviews (2020-08-28, 2020-09-14, 2020-06-10, 2020-02-06), indicating operational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Multiple complaints about poor communication and unresponsiveness to phone calls and callbacks across different years (2016, 2020, 2021), suggesting chronic management issue.
• CRITICAL: Documented instances of work not completed as specified or to customer requirements (2023-09-27 review: shower valves placed in wrong location, tub valves installed incorrectly; 2016-12-25 review: improper duct installation, overbilling, rude response to complaints).
• CRITICAL: Refusal to correct mistakes or honor callbacks (2023-09-27: 'TJ Plumbing refused to come correct their mistakes').
• Price inconsistency flagged: One review (2018-04-11) documents rapid hourly rate increases ($80-85 to $149.95 within 9 months), raising fairness concerns.
• Several reviews lack text content (3 blank reviews with ratings), reducing data quality slightly.
• Oldest review from 2000 is likely data error and excluded from recency analysis; most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2023 period, indicating ongoing issues.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; complaints are specific, detailed, and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The score is driven by consistent, detailed, and corroborated negative feedback across multiple dimensions spanning several years, particularly regarding professionalism and project completion. While some positive reviews acknowledge technical competence and fair pricing on completed jobs, the systematic nature of operational failures (no-shows, poor communication, incomplete work, refusal to correct mistakes) represents a material risk to customers. This company presents significant reliability concerns and should be approached with caution.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 4 reviews spanning a wide date range (2012–2022). Professionalism is significantly undermined by one review alleging racist comments and another reporting ignored phone calls, which are serious concerns that cannot be dismissed even against positive mentions of politeness. Pricing is a clear weak point: two reviews explicitly describe unexpected or excessive charges and a lack of upfront cost communication, while only one review praises transparent pricing. Project completion is also problematic, with one review reporting a drain that was not properly fixed and another noting outdated equipment was installed against the customer's wishes. The one long-term positive review speaks to consistent quality over 20 years, which provides some counterbalance but cannot outweigh the specific and serious negative incidents described.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — scores carry very limited statistical reliability.
• Reviews span 10 years (2012–2022); the majority of reviews are older than 1 year relative to any recent evaluation, and only one review is from 2022. Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current performance.
• One review explicitly alleges racist comments by the contractor — this is a serious conduct flag that goes beyond standard scoring dimensions and should be weighted heavily by any prospective customer.
• One review reports the contractor did not answer follow-up calls after incomplete work — a direct project completion and professionalism concern.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic responses.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, most of which are over 1 year old, and should be treated as highly unreliable — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.