Find Nearby Plumbers In Roswell, Georgia

Superior Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in execution, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and courteous behavior. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous customers report excessive charges, hidden fees (dispatch/service charges not applied to work), and quotes that are double or triple competitor rates. Project completion is generally solid with good follow-through, though some customers report callback issues and unresolved problems. The disparity between positive service quality reviews and negative pricing/billing reviews creates a polarized customer experience.

• PRICING PATTERN: Extremely high volume of complaints (60+ reviews) about overcharging, excessive dispatch fees ($62-$89 not credited to work), and quotes significantly above market rates. This is the dominant negative theme across the dataset.
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTION: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 2025 show identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., multiple reviews with 'Tyler D.', 'Seth', 'Andrew' using nearly word-for-word descriptions). These appear clustered in a 2-week period and lack specificity. Confidence in recent 5-star reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with suspicious similarity. Reviews from 2019-2024 show much more balanced distribution with significant 1-star complaints. Recent data may not be representative.
• MANAGEMENT/CUSTOMER SERVICE: Multiple reviews cite rude office staff, managers who hang up on customers, refusal to honor warranties, and poor callback responsiveness. This suggests systemic customer service issues beyond individual technician performance.
• DISPATCH FEE CONTROVERSY: Repeated complaint that $62-$89 dispatch fee is charged in addition to work costs, not credited toward the job—this practice is explicitly called out as deceptive in 15+ reviews.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several customers report company refusing to honor stated warranties or charging full price for warranty work, creating trust issues.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be interpreted with caution: while technician professionalism and experience are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension is severely problematic and represents a major value concern that significantly drags down the overall score. The recent cluster of identical 5-star reviews suggests potential review manipulation, reducing confidence in the most recent data. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates upfront and verify pricing with competitors before committing, as overcharging complaints are pervasive and credible across multiple years.

Southern Phoenix Services demonstrates strong technical expertise and responsiveness, with many customers praising specific technicians (Nick, Jake, Albert) for professional workmanship and timely service. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious quality control inconsistencies, pricing transparency issues, and critical follow-through failures. Multiple reviews document catastrophic installation errors (tankless water heater code violations creating life-threatening hazards), overcharging ($775 for $100 in parts and labor), no-shows despite confirmed appointments, and unresponsiveness to customer complaints. While positive reviews highlight good communication and fair pricing in some cases, negative reviews reveal systemic problems with accountability, consistency across technicians, and management responsiveness to complaints.

• CRITICAL QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: One review documents multiple life-threatening code violations in tankless water heater installation (carbon monoxide hazards, improper venting, uncapped gas lines, incorrect pipe materials). Customer had to hire second plumber to completely redo work. Company did not respond to multiple contact attempts.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews report significant overcharging and hidden fees. One customer charged $775 for parts/labor worth ~$100 (20-30 min work). Another charged $40 quote fee without disclosure. A third reports $700 overquote vs. competitors. Company refuses to provide itemized invoices.
• NO-SHOW AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 3 reviews document missed appointments with confirmed times, no communication, and no follow-up apologies. One customer waited all day with no show or callback. Another waited at home for 8-10AM appointment with no response to texts.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly-praised technicians (Nick, Jake, Albert) and poor performers. One technician left cigarette butt in driveway, broke customer's faucet and blamed sediment, then quoted replacement instead of fixing damage. Another flooded yard and refused to return without additional $189 charge.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS TO COMPLAINTS: Multiple customers report inability to reach owner/management to resolve billing disputes and service failures. Dispatcher promises callbacks that never materialize.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 30 reviews are 5-star with highly generic praise and minimal specifics (e.g., 'Fantastic service,' 'Great experience,' 'Highly recommend'). Many mention same technician names (Nick, Jake, Albert) with identical positive framing. However, detailed negative reviews provide specific technical failures and pricing breakdowns, suggesting negative reviews are authentic. The volume and consistency of 5-star reviews without detail warrants caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most 5-star reviews cluster in 2020-2022. Most recent reviews (2023) are 1-star with serious complaints. This suggests deterioration in service quality or management changes.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects genuine high-quality work from certain technicians and positive experiences, it masks critical systemic failures in quality control, pricing transparency, appointment reliability, and management accountability. The company appears to operate with significant inconsistency: excellent service from some technicians paired with catastrophic failures from others, fair pricing in some cases paired with egregious overcharging in others, and responsive communication sometimes paired with complete non-responsiveness to complaints. Customers should be aware that while they may receive good work, they face material risk of code violations, overcharging, no-shows, and inability to resolve disputes with management. The recent trend toward 1-star reviews with specific, detailed complaints is concerning.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

Roberts Plumbing receives strong praise for responsiveness, communication, and technical skill across the majority of reviews, with multiple customers highlighting same-day or after-hours availability and clear explanations of work performed. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: two detailed negative reviews describe charges that felt deceptive or excessive, including billing for idle time, undisclosed trip fees, inflated parts markups, and administrative charges, which substantially drag down the pricing dimension. Project completion is generally solid but is meaningfully undermined by one review describing a failure to return and honor warranty work on a valve the plumber himself installed, along with a dismissive response to the customer. The experience dimension scores well overall, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics and quality workmanship, though one reviewer questioned whether a recommended repair was actually necessary. The spread between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed critical reviews suggests a contractor capable of excellent work but with inconsistent billing practices and occasional follow-through failures.

• Pricing transparency is a documented concern across multiple independent reviews (2022 and 2015), with specific dollar amounts cited — this is credible negative signal, not noise.
• One review (2017) describes a clear failure to honor a callback on the contractor's own prior work, with the contractor ultimately refusing to return without a trip charge — this is a meaningful project completion and professionalism flag.
• Several 5-star reviews (2016–2018 era) are somewhat generic in praise but do include specific details (after-hours visit, dentist appointment, boiler work), reducing fake review suspicion — no strong fake review pattern detected.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. The 2022 negative pricing review is the second most recent. Recency weighting slightly favors the positive 2024 review but the dataset is predominantly dated.
• The single 2024 review involves a different team (Owen and Chad) rather than Brad Roberts directly — it is unclear whether the business has changed personnel or structure, which may affect consistency of service quality going forward.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 2015–2024 with usable data across all four dimensions, but the score should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of most reviews, documented pricing complaints with specific credible detail, and one clear follow-through failure — prospective customers should pay particular attention to getting itemized written quotes before agreeing to any work.

Derek receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers highlight his punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and clean work habits. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews as fair and reasonable for the quality delivered. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting repeat use over many years and successful handling of emergency situations, which strongly implies reliable follow-through. Experience is affirmed through references to skilled installations (tankless water heater, kitchen sink, dishwasher) and effective problem-solving, though specific technical detail is limited. The overall picture is of a dependable, honest plumber with a loyal long-term customer base.

• 5 of 7 reviews are older than 12 months, with 5 reviews dated between 2015 and 2019 — recency is a concern and these older reviews carry reduced weight.
• Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (October 2023), limiting confidence in current performance.
• All 7 reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While individual reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the absence of any critical feedback across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• One review (2023-10-18) is very brief with no specific details ('Just had another awesome experience with Derek... he arrived quickly and solved our issues professionally') — this review contributes limited usable data.
• Small sample size of 7 reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the reviews are consistently positive and contain enough specific detail to be credible, but the small sample size and heavy skew toward reviews older than 4 years significantly limit confidence in how well this score reflects Derek's current performance.

Steve's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality and responsiveness across multiple reviews, earning an 85/100. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with customers noting fair rates compared to competitors (88/100). However, project completion shows a notable weakness: while most jobs are completed successfully and on time, one critical review from 2020 reports complete non-responsiveness (no callback after two messages), and another from 2012 indicates inability to complete the requested work. Technical experience is solid with evidence of problem-solving ability and thorough workmanship (88/100). The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong fundamentals tempered by reliability concerns in responsiveness and job acceptance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 4+ years old (2009-2013 range). Only 2 reviews from 2022-2023 provide current performance data. Historical scores may not reflect current operations.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review from 2020-07-09 reports complete non-responsiveness (2 unanswered messages over 1 month), suggesting potential communication/callback issues. Review from 2012-02-24 reports inability to complete job despite 'can do attitude' claim.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Recent data (past 12 months) consists of only 2 reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from 2022-2023) and a concerning pattern of non-responsiveness in at least one documented case, despite strong performance in completed jobs. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects the small sample size and age of most reviews.