Find Nearby Plumbers In Marietta, Georgia

Piedmont Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently mentioned quality — reviewers cite punctuality, friendliness, and availability. Pricing transparency is explicitly praised in multiple reviews, including one detailed account confirming no hidden fees across two separate jobs. Project completion is supported by the most detailed review, which describes two fully completed installations done on schedule, though only two reviews speak to this dimension directly. Experience and technical knowledge are affirmed by references to well pump and water treatment system installations handled competently, though the evidence base remains small overall.

• One review contains only 'unknown' as text and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• All reviews are rated 5 stars, which warrants mild caution, though the detailed long-form review adds credibility and specificity that reduces fake review concern.
• All reviews are older than 8 years (most recent: November 2016; oldest: December 2011). Recency is a significant concern — there is no data from the past several years, and current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• Total usable review count is very low (4 reviews). Scores should be treated as directional only and not definitive.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample (4 usable reviews), all of which are more than 8 years old, making it impossible to assess the contractor's current quality or consistency.

Rapid Flow Plumbing has a mixed but generally positive track record across these six reviews. The older reviews (2019–2021) consistently praise professionalism, courtesy, and responsiveness, with named technicians like Jesse Waits, Jimmy, and Dylan receiving specific commendations. However, the most recent review (2024) is a significant negative outlier, describing wrong parts delivered, floor damage, unauthorized work billed to the customer, and rude office staff — all serious concerns across multiple dimensions. Pricing received a limited signal: one reviewer found pricing consistent with market research, while the 2024 reviewer disputed charges for unrequested parts. Project completion is dragged down by the 2024 review's account of repeated delivery errors and incomplete adherence to customer instructions. The recency of the negative review carries elevated weight under scoring rules.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of six reviews are from 2019, which is over 5 years old. These reviews carry reduced weight relative to the 2024 review.
• PATTERN CONCERN: The three 2019 reviews are all 5-star, relatively brief, and two of them specifically name 'Jesse Waits' in back-to-back August 2019 dates — this clustering warrants mild scrutiny, though the reviews do contain some specific detail.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE SIGNAL: The 2024 review describes multiple compounding failures — wrong product delivered twice, property damage, unauthorized work, incorrect billing, and hostile customer service response. This is the most recent data point and significantly impacts score reliability.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews span a 5-year period, making it difficult to establish reliable patterns. WW Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to the small review volume, heavy age skew toward 2019, and a recent (2024) multi-issue negative review that meaningfully contradicts the older positive pattern — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

A Plus Priority Plumbing has a large and long-running review history with a clear split between strongly positive and strongly negative experiences. The majority of positive reviewers praise Ray's responsiveness, same-day availability, and fair pricing, which are genuine and consistent strengths. However, a significant and recurring pattern of 1-star reviews describes serious professionalism failures including verbal abuse (profanity directed at customers), abandoned jobs mid-work leaving customers without water, price changes after work began, and incomplete repairs — these are not isolated incidents and span multiple years. Project completion is a particular concern, with multiple credible accounts of work being left unfinished or improperly completed. The experience dimension scores moderately well due to numerous accounts of skilled diagnostics and effective repairs, but is tempered by reviews citing incompetence on more complex jobs.

• REPEATED PATTERN OF VERBAL ABUSE: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2019, 2020, 2021, 2022) describe Ray using profanity and aggressive language toward customers during disputes — this is a serious and credible behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• ABANDONED JOBS: At least 3 credible reviews describe the crew cutting into pipes or starting work and then leaving the job site without completing it, leaving customers with no water supply — a critical project completion failure.
• PRICE BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2020, 2021, 2022, 2024) describe prices being raised after work began or after the customer was committed, without prior notice — this is a recurring and credible pattern.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: Several reviews describe paying for work that was not actually completed or not functioning correctly after the plumber left (e.g., shower with no hot water, unrepaired pipe, valve possibly not replaced).
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2020-01-05 are nearly word-for-word identical ('We had a leak in our main water line...') — these appear to be the same reviewer posting twice and were counted as one incident.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2021-02-07 are nearly word-for-word identical ('Responded faster than any of the major emergency plumbing companies...') — counted as one incident.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 6 reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring. These inflate the star average without providing usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most severe negative reviews (abandoned jobs, verbal abuse, price manipulation) span from 2019 through 2024, indicating these issues have not been resolved over time. Positive reviews from 2024-2025 are also present, suggesting inconsistent service quality rather than improvement.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW-MODERATE: A subset of 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Excellent service and very knowledgeable. I will be using them again.') with no job-specific details. While not conclusive, these reviews provide minimal evidentiary value and were weighted conservatively.
• OVERALL RISK FLAG: The volume and specificity of negative reviews — particularly around professionalism, job abandonment, and pricing integrity — represent a meaningful risk signal that prospective customers should weigh carefully against the positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (120 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because the review history reveals a persistent and credible pattern of serious service failures that are not fully captured by aggregate star ratings alone — the 68.4 score reflects genuine mixed performance, not a near-average contractor.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

Batylin Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension: multiple reviews across different years (2012, 2014, 2019) document serious failures including missed appointments with no communication, 4-hour late arrivals, unanswered voicemails, last-minute texts, and in one egregious case, threatening legal action and defamation suits against a customer who left a negative review. Positive reviews do praise Vladimir's courteous and honest demeanor on-site, but the systemic communication failures drag the professionalism score down significantly. Pricing is similarly split — several reviewers praised fair and reasonable charges, while one reviewer was blindsided by an undisclosed $89 service fee and another noted that follow-up visit rates were comparable to large commercial plumbers. Project completion scores moderately well when work was actually performed, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished correctly and on time, but several reviews describe appointments that were never honored at all, which materially lowers this dimension. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, with multiple reviewers specifically praising Vladimir's technical skill, honest diagnosis, and quality workmanship, including one reviewer who noted he identified unnecessary repairs recommended by a competitor.

• THREATENING BEHAVIOR FLAG: One detailed 2014 review documents Batylin Plumbing sending written legal threats (theft of services, defamation, slander, property lien) to a customer who disputed an undisclosed fee and indicated they might leave a negative review. This is a serious red flag about business ethics and integrity.
• PATTERN OF COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 4 separate reviews (2012 x2, 2014, 2019) from different years document the same failure pattern — missed appointments, unreturned calls, and no proactive communication about delays. This is a systemic issue, not an isolated incident.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2019) is a 1-star complaint. The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2018, with the most detailed positive reviews dating to 2011–2014. No reviews exist after October 2019, meaning all reviews are more than 5 years old. Current performance is unknown.
• UNDISCLOSED FEES: One review documents a service/diagnostic fee that was not disclosed upfront, which contributed to a billing dispute and subsequent legal threats from the contractor.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer (4-star, edited) noted that emergency pricing was fair but follow-up visit pricing was dramatically higher — comparable to large commercial plumbers — and ultimately hired a competitor at roughly one-quarter the price for the same work.
• SMALL SAMPLE CAVEAT: With only 17 reviews spanning 8 years (2011–2019), the dataset is limited and may not reflect current business practices. The WW Score should be interpreted with caution given the age of the data.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high statistical reliability given that all four dimensions have 8 or more mentions, but the trustworthiness of the score as a predictor of current performance is significantly undermined by the fact that all reviews are more than 5 years old, a documented pattern of repeated professionalism failures across multiple years, and one instance of a contractor threatening legal action against a customer for leaving a negative review — a behavior that may have suppressed additional negative reviews.

Cool Air Mechanical presents a deeply polarized review profile. Individual technicians — particularly named ones like Nima, Eric Carson, Sagar Bhatt, Deon Chambliss, and Moises — receive strong praise for professionalism, knowledge, and communication, which elevates the professionalism and experience scores. However, these positives are substantially offset by a large volume of serious negative reviews documenting repeated installation failures, abandoned or incomplete work, unresolved warranty disputes, dishonest diagnostic practices, and chronic failure to follow through on callbacks and emergency service commitments. Pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple reviewers citing egregious markups, bait-and-switch quotes, and charges for parts at 10-20x their market value. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with numerous accounts of systems failing within weeks of installation, technicians returning 6-10+ times without resolution, and customers left without heat or cooling for days or weeks.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A large block of reviews dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-08 are near-identical or exact duplicates of each other (same review text, same rating, different dates). This strongly suggests artificial review inflation. Duplicate entries were counted as unique reviews per the data provided but flagged here.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Many blank reviews (no text, only 5-star rating) appear clustered on the same dates (2025-06-06, 2025-06-08, 2025-05-07). Blank 5-star reviews with no content provide no usable signal and are consistent with review padding tactics.
• BRIBERY ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer explicitly states the company offered to perform free service in exchange for changing a 1-star review to 5 stars, and another reviewer states the company bribes customers with warranty extensions for Google reviews. This materially undermines the credibility of the positive review pool.
• DISHONESTY ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers allege technicians showed photos of other customers' units to fabricate mold or damage claims, and one reviewer caught a technician holding a replacement part while falsely claiming the entire unit needed replacement.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are heavily duplicated and likely inflated. The most substantive and credible negative reviews span 2018-2024, representing a long-term pattern of systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED INSTALLATION FAILURES: Multiple reviewers across different years describe brand-new systems failing repeatedly within weeks or months of installation, with technicians unable to resolve issues after 6-10+ visits. This is a systemic quality control concern.
• WARRANTY AND CONTRACT DISPUTES: Multiple reviewers allege the company changed service contract terms unilaterally, refused to honor stated warranties, and sent fraudulent past-due invoices for already-paid work.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE MISREPRESENTATION: Multiple reviewers state the company advertises 24/7 emergency service but does not dispatch technicians after hours, constituting false advertising per at least one reviewer who filed a complaint with the Georgia Consumer Protection Division.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of artificial review inflation, duplicate entries, and credible allegations of review manipulation — the true underlying score for project completion and pricing is likely lower than calculated.