Find Nearby Plumbers In New Orleans, Louisiana

JRS Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (85.3) and experience (84.6). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical competence, as evidenced by extensive positive feedback on responsiveness, friendliness, and knowledgeable workmanship. Project completion scores (82.1) reflect generally reliable follow-through, though a small number of callbacks and one no-show incident slightly temper this dimension. Pricing (76.8) is the weakest dimension, with legitimate concerns about cost fairness in several cases, though most reviews praise competitive rates. The WW Score of 81.2 reflects a solid, trustworthy contractor with minor vulnerabilities in pricing consistency and occasional service lapses.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews cite unexpectedly high charges or price gouging, particularly during emergencies (2021 winter storm reviews, $800 quote vs. $30 DIY fix). Several customers report being charged for service calls or full hours when minimal work was required. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices or opportunistic charging during high-demand periods.
• ANGRY CUSTOMER INCIDENTS: Two reviews (Jan 2024, Aug 2023) describe aggressive, threatening behavior from technicians/owner when customers questioned charges or requested refunds. One customer reported the technician 'yelled,' 'undid work,' and the customer feared physical assault. Another reported the owner and technician 'screaming' and being 'threatening.' These are serious red flags for customer safety and professionalism.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews report work that had to be redone by other plumbers (Dec 2012, Feb 2013), incorrect installations requiring callbacks (Jan 2024 garbage disposal), and poor problem diagnosis (attic water line job in July 2014 rated 2.0 stars—customer had to hire another plumber to redo work correctly at lower cost). One review notes plumber lacked familiarity with expensive faucet installation.
• NO-SHOW AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: One review (Oct 2013) reports a complete no-show with no callback after two voicemails left. Another review (Aug 2023) describes missed first appointment with no call, requiring customer to reschedule. These are significant reliability failures.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite unexpected charges, lack of transparency, or refusal to provide itemized receipts (Aug 2023 review—technician refused to provide receipt for parts, customer suspected price inflation). One review (July 2014) describes a $2,234 job that another plumber completed for significantly less, suggesting overcharging or poor assessment.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY STANDARDS: Reviews span multiple technicians (Jim, Jason, Caleb, Dexter, Joe, etc.) with highly variable quality. Some technicians receive glowing praise while others generate serious complaints. This suggests inconsistent hiring, training, or oversight.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews (pricing gouging, angry incidents, no-shows, quality issues) are from 2012–2024, with several from 2023–2024. Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2014–2018 and 2015–2017. This temporal pattern suggests potential recent decline in service quality or company culture.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40 reviews contain only a rating with no text or minimal text ('unknown,' 'N/A,' blank, single words like 'Great!' or 'Good Work!'). While not conclusive, this high volume of low-detail 5-star reviews (many from 2013–2018) may inflate the overall rating. However, the majority of substantive reviews are detailed and credible.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill, the recent pattern of serious incidents (aggressive customer interactions, billing disputes, no-shows, quality rework) and pricing inconsistencies—particularly in 2023–2024—suggests the company may not be as reliable as historical averages indicate. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates, clarify pricing upfront, and be prepared to escalate disputes if service quality or behavior becomes problematic. The company's best work appears to have been delivered in the 2014–2018 period; recent reviews warrant skepticism.

Jeff of All Trades demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in technical expertise and experience (85.0). Professionalism scores well at 82.0, supported by extensive evidence of responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous behavior. Project completion (80.0) and pricing (79.5) are solid but reveal meaningful concerns: multiple reviews document incomplete work, scheduling failures, and price disputes that offset the many positive experiences. The WW Score of 81.2 reflects a capable contractor with broad skills but notable reliability and follow-through issues that prevent a higher rating.

• RELIABILITY PATTERN: 15+ reviews document scheduling failures, no-shows, ghosting, or incomplete work requiring callbacks. Examples include reviews from 2022-03-14, 2019-07-29, 2019-07-21, 2016-03-19, and 2016-07-30. This is a material concern despite overall positive sentiment.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2023-07-31, 2020-08-06, 2020-12-14) report surprise price increases, hidden charges, or disputes over final billing. One review explicitly alleges the contractor broke a toilet and charged the customer for the replacement without credit.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Several reviews report poor workmanship (2021-06-20 electrical damage, 2018-12-09 plumbing leaks, 2020-12-01 paint damage and smoking in home) alongside many praising quality. This suggests inconsistent execution.
• BEHAVIORAL CONCERNS: 8+ reviews allege aggressive or reckless driving, one report of verbal threats to an employee, and one highly implausible review (vomiting on dog) that may be fabricated. These do not directly impact work quality but raise character questions.
• RECENCY: Most reviews are 2+ years old (pre-2022). Recent reviews (2024-2025) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review management.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The outhouse/vomiting review (2023-06-10) is implausible and reads as deliberately absurd. The empty/blank reviews (multiple on 2022-06-10 and 2023-06-10) suggest possible review manipulation. Confidence reduced slightly due to these anomalies.
• VOLUME IMBALANCE: 85% of reviews are 5-star, but detailed negative reviews reveal substantive problems. This suggests either highly polarized customer experiences or review filtering.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for technical capability, but customers should be aware of documented scheduling and follow-through risks; verify all estimates in writing, confirm appointments 24 hours prior, and establish clear payment terms before work begins.

Service Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven primarily by consistently high marks in professionalism, experience, and project completion. Technicians are frequently praised for punctuality, friendliness, knowledge, and thorough workmanship across 58 professionalism mentions and 48 experience mentions. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness with only 16 mentions but a significantly lower score of 72.0, reflecting recurring complaints about high quotes, undisclosed fees, and misleading advertising around free estimates. Project completion scores solidly at 84.0 based on 42 mentions, though a few older reviews cite incomplete work or follow-up issues. The company's strength lies in technical skill and customer interaction; its vulnerability is pricing transparency and value perception.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 6) explicitly criticize pricing as too high, with complaints about $75 diagnostic fees despite advertised 'free estimates,' quotes significantly above competitors, and undisclosed charges. This pattern suggests a systemic pricing transparency issue that contradicts marketing claims.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 8 reviews contain only placeholder text ('unknown', '.', or blank content) with 5-star ratings dated 2014-2016. These appear to be system artifacts or spam entries and should be disregarded. Additionally, 2-3 reviews from May 2025 use nearly identical phrasing praising 'Cody' with suspiciously similar structure, though these contain sufficient detail to be plausible.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of substantive reviews (approximately 65%) are from 2024-2025, with older reviews (pre-2020) showing some quality control issues (unprofessional behavior, incomplete work, poor communication). Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive, suggesting either improved operations or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Older reviews (2017-2019) contain serious complaints about professionalism (tracking dirt, poor cleanup, abandoning jobs, rude office staff), while recent reviews show no such issues. This suggests either significant operational improvement or a shift in reviewer demographics.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: 5 reviews contained no usable text, reducing total analyzable reviews from 87 to 82.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for assessing technical competence and professionalism (HIGH confidence across 58+ mentions), but the pricing dimension (MODERATE confidence, 16 mentions) reveals a significant gap between company marketing and customer perception that warrants direct inquiry before engaging. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are substantially more positive than historical data, suggesting either genuine improvement or potential selection bias; prospective customers should prioritize recent reviews and explicitly confirm pricing terms upfront.

Montalbano's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion across multiple reviews spanning over a decade, with explicit mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, reliability, and thorough workmanship. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned, with customers appreciating transparent explanations of costs. Technical expertise is evidenced by long-term customer relationships and specific praise for skilled plumbers. However, the overall confidence is moderated by the age of most reviews (only 1 review from past 5 years) and limited explicit pricing discussion across the dataset.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 6 reviews are older than 5 years (oldest from 2009). Only 1 review from 2021. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only 2 reviews explicitly mention pricing/value. Score is based on limited evidence.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: No negative or mixed reviews present. While consistent praise is positive, absence of critical feedback limits ability to identify weaknesses or validate authenticity.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias—most reviews are 5+ years old, making it unclear if current service quality matches historical performance. The HIGH confidence in professionalism and project completion is valid based on mention count, but overall WW Score reliability is MODERATE at best given the age of the data and lack of recent customer feedback.

Joe's plumbing service demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on available reviews. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of responsiveness, communication, and courteous service. Pricing receives high marks for fairness, transparency, and refusal to inflate costs for emergency/off-hours work. Project completion is evidenced by completed installations and follow-through on quoted work. Experience is reflected in technical knowledge, efficient problem-solving, and inspector-validated quality workmanship. However, all scores are based on a limited review sample (5 total) with most reviews dating 3+ years old, which moderates overall confidence.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or negative mentions — this uniformity warrants caution, though reviews do contain specific details (Sunday emergency call, inspector validation, multiple projects) that suggest authenticity rather than generic praise
• Review sample is very small (n=5) — scores should be considered preliminary and updated as more recent reviews accumulate
• Most reviews are from 2020 (4 of 5 reviews), with only one from 2022 — recency is a concern; current service quality cannot be fully assessed from this data

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated as a preliminary indicator based on a small, older review sample; while the available feedback is consistently positive and contains specific details suggesting legitimacy, the limited volume and age of reviews (mostly 3+ years old) prevent high confidence in this score as a current representation of service quality.

Bourgeois Plumbing has a strong long-term reputation built on decades of loyal customers, with professionalism and courteous service being the most frequently praised attributes across a large volume of reviews. Project completion scores well overall, with many reviewers noting jobs finished on time or ahead of schedule, though a recurring and significant complaint about scheduling availability — sometimes 2+ weeks out — meaningfully drags this dimension down. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and reasonable, with several reviewers noting bills came in under estimate, but there are notable outliers including one dramatically high quote ($5,500 vs. a $253 repair elsewhere) and complaints about undisclosed billing practices such as charging for travel time and invoice writing. Experience scores well, with multiple reviewers praising the plumbers' technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, including solving problems other plumbers could not. The three near-identical 1-star reviews about sending three plumbers in one week for a toilet (posted across 2021 and 2022) are flagged as likely duplicate or coordinated reviews and were weighted accordingly.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: Three reviews (dated 2021-07-06, 2021-07-06, and 2022-06-10) contain nearly identical language about 'sending 3 plumbers in one week to unstop a residential toilet' and appear to be the same reviewer posting multiple times or a coordinated negative review. These were treated as a single incident rather than three separate data points.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60%) are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2010-2016. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are fewer in number but remain largely positive, suggesting the business has maintained quality over time.
• SCHEDULING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2013, 2013, 2013, 2017, 2020, 2024) explicitly complained about 2+ week wait times for service. This is a consistent and recurring operational issue that meaningfully impacts project completion and responsiveness scores.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One detailed 2016 review describes undisclosed charges for travel time and invoice writing time, which the office confirmed as policy. This is a transparency concern that negatively impacts the pricing dimension.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• ONE NON-SERVICE REVIEW: One 1-star review (2020) was about a reckless driver in a company van and does not reflect plumbing service quality. This was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: One 2012 review describes a post-Katrina pipe installation that was done improperly, leading to mold damage, and the company allegedly refused to address it. One 2020 review describes a toilet installed crooked and grouted in place. These were factored into the experience and project completion scores.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, consumers should note the persistent scheduling availability complaints, the duplicate negative review pattern, and the fact that the majority of reviews predate 2022, meaning recent service quality is supported by fewer data points.