The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians, driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, with multiple reviewers noting the company beat competitor quotes significantly; however, a handful of reviews cite overcharging, unclear billing, and one instance of a $2,800 charge fo...
Read more Score Narrative
The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians, driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, with multiple reviewers noting the company beat competitor quotes significantly; however, a handful of reviews cite overcharging, unclear billing, and one instance of a $2,800 charge for a job far simpler than estimated. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: several reviews document incomplete work, return visits required due to errors, a cracked toilet base left unaddressed, a disposal quoted but not fixed, and a toilet that leaked again the next day after service — with one reviewer noting the company stopped responding to follow-up emails. Experience scores moderately well given strong praise for skilled technicians like Fabian, Eddie, and Brian, but is tempered by documented cases of undersized equipment used, wrong parts installed, and a technician who made problems worse. The co-owner Mary is cited by name in multiple negative reviews for rude, aggressive, and unprofessional behavior, which significantly weighs down the professionalism dimension despite the many positive technician-level interactions.
Flags & Warnings
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review by 'Emery was great and easy my concern...' (2023-11-28) appears twice with identical text and date. The review praising Luis for gas line installation (2021-06-10) appears twice with near-identical text. The review about selling a home and hydrostatic test (2021-01-30 and 2020-12-08) appears twice with nearly identical text. These duplicates have been counted only once each in mention tallies.
• MULTIPLE COMPANIES IN REVIEW SET: Several reviews reference 'Jet Drain' or 'Jet Drain Plumbing' as a distinct business entity, not A&M Plumbing. These appear to be reviews for a different company mixed into this dataset. They were analyzed for scoring purposes but flagged as potentially belonging to a separate contractor.
• REVIEW FOR 'JAIRO' (2025-06-06): This review does not mention A&M Plumbing or any of its known staff by name and may belong to a different contractor entirely.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Co-owner 'Mary' is cited by name in at least 4 separate negative reviews (2013, 2013, 2021, 2023) for rude behavior, use of foul language, failure to return calls, and dismissive responses to legitimate complaints. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PERMIT VIOLATION FLAGGED: One reviewer (2023-06-10, 1-star) explicitly states A&M chose not to obtain a city permit prior to plumbing work, which caused the customer financial harm. This is a serious compliance concern.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide no usable data and inflate the apparent positivity of the review set. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of detailed reviews date from 2013–2018. While there are recent reviews (2024–2025), the bulk of substantive feedback is older than 5 years. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind, as service quality may have changed.
• BILLING DISPUTE PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews describe being charged for work that was not completed, not completed correctly, or for a service call where nothing was fixed. This is a recurring theme that meaningfully impacts the project completion score.
Reliability Statement
This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight; however, reliability is moderately reduced by the presence of duplicate reviews, blank no-text reviews, mixed-company reviews (Jet Drain), a consistent pattern of owner misconduct complaints, and documented billing and workmanship failures that suggest the positive aggregate score masks meaningful service inconsistency.
Read less