Find Nearby Plumbers In Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Jake's Plumbing demonstrates significant inconsistency across service dimensions. While technical expertise and workmanship quality are strong (82/100), the company struggles substantially with project completion (68/100) and professionalism (71/100). A substantial portion of negative reviews cite multiple failed visits, poor communication, no-shows, and difficulty completing complex jobs. Pricing concerns (73/100) emerge in several reviews regarding unexpected charges, diagnostic fees, and price increases mid-project. The company excels with simple, straightforward jobs but falters on complex work requiring coordination and follow-through.

• SIGNIFICANT POLARIZATION: 60+ five-star reviews vs. 30+ one-star reviews suggests two very different customer experiences—possibly dependent on technician assigned or job complexity
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple detailed complaints (2024-10-02, 2024-09-15, 2022-07-01, 2022-06-13, 2021-12-16, 2021-01-28) describe multiple failed visits, no-shows, and incomplete work over extended periods
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments, and lack of follow-up across reviews spanning 2012-2024
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews report unexpected charges, diagnostic fees not disclosed upfront, and price increases after initial quotes (2023-01-20, 2021-02-24, 2014-01-10)
• COMPLEX JOB STRUGGLES: Detailed 2024-10-02 review explicitly states company 'struggles to handle even modestly complex jobs' with wrong parts ordered and unprepared plumbers
• WARRANTY COMPANY ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2015-2016 era) suggest problematic relationship with home warranty companies, with accusations of misrepresenting customer situations to insurers
• EMPLOYEE VARIATION: Reviews explicitly note 'variation' in plumber capability and professionalism; some named technicians (Freddie, Erik, Kyle, Jon) receive consistent praise while others receive complaints
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent 2024 reviews show both 5-star and 1-star ratings, negative reviews from 2024 are more detailed and specific about systemic failures than older reviews

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. The extreme polarization (40% five-star vs. 20% one-star) and recurring patterns of project completion failures, communication breakdowns, and pricing disputes suggest the company's quality is highly dependent on which technician is assigned and job complexity. The score reflects an average across fundamentally inconsistent service delivery. Customers should request specific technicians (Freddie, Erik, Kyle, Jon appear most reliable) and avoid complex multi-visit projects if possible.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

This aggregated review set covers multiple businesses operating under the 'American Plumbing' name across different regions, which significantly complicates scoring. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsive technicians, professional conduct, and quality workmanship — with many named employees (Seth, Josh, Matt, Charlie, Felix, Luis, Zeke, and others) receiving repeated commendation. However, a substantial minority of negative reviews — roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including rude staff, no-shows, billing disputes, price gouging, incomplete work, and failed inspections, which meaningfully drag down all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about bait-and-switch quotes, unexplained charges, and prices significantly above competitors, though many other reviewers found pricing fair or even below-market. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is penalized by recurring complaints about jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and work failing inspection.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'American Plumbing' name across different U.S. regions (California, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, etc.). Scores reflect an aggregate that may not represent any single business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER DETECTED: A cluster of 1-star reviews dated 2022-06-07 with no review text (approximately 8-10 blank 1-star reviews) and several with near-identical short phrases ('Unprofessional', 'Very unprofessional', 'Very unprofessional and disrespectful') posted on the same date strongly suggests a coordinated negative review attack. These were noted but their impact was moderated given the pattern.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 25-30 reviews contained no 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 2006 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily weighted and show a predominantly positive trend, though the detailed negative review from June 2025 regarding permit failures and unprofessional conduct is significant.
• REPEATED REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Matt and Richard of American Plumbing Laguna Beach appears to be posted twice with slightly different dates (2025-04-10 and 2025-04-07). Only counted once.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple negative pricing reviews include specific dollar amounts, named employees, and detailed circumstances, lending them high credibility. These are not generic complaints and meaningfully reduce the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe missed appointments without notification, which is a recurring operational pattern that reduces the professionalism and project completion scores.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a guide to any single business is LIMITED because the reviews demonstrably cover multiple distinct companies sharing the 'American Plumbing' name; prospective customers should seek reviews specific to their local branch before making a hiring decision.

Pristine Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians as friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative — these dimensions are supported by an exceptionally large number of mentions and carry HIGH confidence. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished same-day or within the agreed timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews cite callbacks needed, incomplete fixes, or abandoned follow-through (including a notable re-pipe with multiple call-backs, a water heater fix that failed initially, and a missed appointment). The pricing dimension is the most damaging factor in the score: a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews explicitly describes price gouging, charges far above competitor quotes, and labor rates that reviewers found indefensible — with multiple 1-star reviews citing specific dollar amounts that were two to five times competitor pricing. This pricing concern is not isolated and spans multiple years and multiple technicians, significantly dragging the overall WW Score down from what would otherwise be a high-performing contractor profile.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: A significant and consistent pattern of price gouging complaints exists across multiple years and multiple technicians. Specific examples include: $1,600 charged for a 1.5-hour drain job, $1,249 quoted vs. $476 accepted from competitors for the same job, $858 for a $125 garbage disposal replacement taking 7 minutes, $900 for a valve replacement, $1,350 quoted for a toilet installation vs. $185-$275 from competitors, $2,800 quoted for a camera inspection vs. $199 from a competitor, and $8,500 estimated to fix their own installation error. This is not a fringe complaint — it appears in at least 15+ distinct reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN — MODERATE: Several reviews describe work that required multiple callbacks to fix correctly, including a re-pipe job with at least 4 callback visits and no final crawlspace inspection, a water heater fix that failed immediately after the tech left, a shower temperature issue that was not resolved after a $340 repair, and a backflow device incorrectly installed that the company then quoted $8,500 to fix.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES — MODERATE: Multiple reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from office staff, including a woman yelling at a customer and hanging up, a technician (Nick) yelling at a tile contractor, and a manager refusing to take responsibility for a pricing dispute. These are not isolated incidents.
• MISSED APPOINTMENTS — MODERATE: At least 3 reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without adequate notice, including one reviewer who took a day off work for a no-show.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW-MODERATE: Approximately 38 reviews in the dataset contain no review text at all (rating only, all 5-star). These blank reviews provide no usable data and inflate the raw star rating without contributing evidence. They have been excluded from scoring. Additionally, a cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-25 (4 reviews on the same day) and 2025-06-07 (4 reviews on the same day, 3 with no text) show suspicious clustering patterns. Confidence has not been reduced for the scored dimensions as the substantive reviews are numerous and detailed, but the blank reviews are flagged.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing 'SIX different quotes ranging from $793 to $1,357' for an AirBnb leak repair appears to be submitted twice (2022-06-28 with two different timestamps). Only counted once in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2017 to June 2025. The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2020 onward. Pricing complaints are present across all years including the most recent 12 months (2024-2025), indicating this is not a historical issue that has been resolved.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset (265 total, 227 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving HIGH statistical confidence in all four dimensions; however, the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by prospective customers, as the negative pricing feedback is specific, detailed, and consistent across many independent reviewers — consumers should obtain competing quotes before committing to any work with this company.

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.

B&D Plumbing has a large and long-running review history with a strong majority of positive experiences, particularly around professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and covering no-shows, missed appointments without callbacks, poor workmanship (back-stabbing outlets, failed pipe repairs), and pricing disputes — prevents a high score across all dimensions. Pricing is a recurring concern in both directions: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling overcharged for short visits or minimal work. Project completion is dragged down by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one instance of a repair failing repeatedly. The experience dimension scores highest due to numerous detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics and creative problem-solving, but is tempered by documented cases of substandard workmanship.

• 17 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use the name 'Tom' or 'Dale' specifically and appear to reference different geographic markets (Cincinnati/Ohio area vs. Baton Rouge/Louisiana vs. Riverside/California), suggesting this may be a shared brand name used by multiple independent operators. Scores may reflect mixed contractor quality rather than a single business.
• Multiple no-show and missed appointment complaints span from 2013 through 2024, indicating a persistent and systemic reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2021) explicitly states B&D is a middleman/sales company that subcontracts work to other plumbing companies, which may explain inconsistency in quality and pricing across reviews.
• One review (2025) alleges the company stole a commercial job from the reviewer — a serious ethics complaint that could not be verified but is noted.
• One review (2025) documents use of a fire-hazardous back-stabbing wiring method by what appears to be an electrical service call, suggesting possible scope confusion or a different trade operating under the same brand.
• The review base spans from 2004 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The majority of detailed negative reviews are concentrated in 2019–2025, suggesting possible quality decline over time.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, though a number of very short generic positive reviews ('Fantastic company.', 'A good company to work with.', 'Great customer service') with no specifics slightly reduce confidence in the positive signal.

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 inconsistent service quality across what may be multiple operators sharing the B&D Plumbing brand name in different regions.