Find Nearby Plumbers In Frederick, Maryland

Pleasant Valley Plumbing has a large base of satisfied customers who consistently praise punctuality, professionalism, and pleasant demeanor, which drives the professionalism score upward. However, several serious negative reviews — including a no-show appointment, a technician who lied to a customer about warranty coverage, workers who were rude and dismissive to a deaf customer, and a failed leak repair across two visits — meaningfully drag all dimensions down. Pricing is mixed: several reviewers praised fair and competitive pricing, but two reviewers explicitly called out hidden travel-time charges and a supply line marked up 4–5x its retail value, indicating inconsistent pricing transparency. Project completion is similarly split, with multiple reviews praising efficient, complete work but at least two reviews describing jobs that were not completed or resulted in property damage. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a meaningful and documented pattern of serious failures that cannot be dismissed.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-02-29) are nearly word-for-word identical negative reviews about the same Cole/supply line incident. This appears to be the same reviewer posting twice across platforms or dates. The duplicate was noted but only counted once per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• Two reviews contain only a star rating and no text (blank reviews dated 2020-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2016-07-19). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no substantive content (2016-07-19, 2015-11-10) and were excluded from scoring.
• Several older reviews (pre-2018) were given reduced weight in scoring due to age; the most recent 12-month reviews (2024-2025) were weighted most heavily.
• A notable cluster of negative reviews describes dishonesty, not just poor workmanship — including a technician lying to a warranty company, lying to a customer about coverage, and allegedly using a non-new part while charging for a new one. These are integrity concerns beyond typical service quality issues and are reflected in reduced scores across all dimensions.
• The review base spans from 2005 to 2025, a 20-year window. Older reviews (pre-2018) may not reflect current business practices and were treated as lower-weight evidence.

With 38+ professionalism mentions and 12+ mentions across all other dimensions, the WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH overall confidence and reflects a contractor with a genuinely divided track record — strong repeat customers and efficient work on one side, and documented dishonesty, incomplete repairs, and hidden charges on the other.

Larry & Sons demonstrates solid professionalism with many technicians praised for courtesy, responsiveness, and communication (76.5/100). However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns, with numerous customers reporting excessive quotes, hidden fees, and charges perceived as price gouging (58.0/100). Project completion shows moderate reliability but is undermined by several cases of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and follow-up failures (72.0/100). Technical experience is generally strong with skilled technicians, though some estimates reveal knowledge gaps (75.5/100). The wide variance between positive recent reviews and negative historical complaints suggests inconsistent service delivery.

• PRICING RED FLAG: 21 mentions of pricing issues across 67 reviews (31% complaint rate). Recurring patterns include: $49 estimate fees not credited, quotes 5-10x higher than competitors, charges for simple jobs ($1200 for gas line shortening, $300+ for faucet replacement, $495 for 5-minute capacitor swap), and lack of transparency on labor rates.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document incomplete work—underground drainage system left unfinished with debris in yard, basement cement work abandoned, AC panel left open causing secondary damage, water heater installed but no permit documentation provided despite 5 follow-up calls.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Office staff described as disrespectful and dismissive in multiple reviews. One customer reported receptionist claiming technician recommended new water heater when he did not, and refusing to honor coupons presented after service.
• DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY ISSUES: Two separate reviews describe misdiagnosis—one customer told compressor was blown when only fan motor needed replacement; another quoted $4000 for service completed elsewhere for $750. One estimate for AC issue was $900 for blown fuse, but technician left panel open causing damage to separate AC unit.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most negative reviews (pricing, incomplete work, poor communication) are from 2020-2024. Recent reviews (2025, late 2024) are predominantly 5-star with specific technician praise, suggesting either improved operations or potential review selection bias.
• CONFIDENCE MODERATION: While mention counts are high, the extreme polarity (many 5-star vs. many 1-star with detailed complaints) and documented service inconsistencies warrant conservative scoring despite high mention volume.

This WW Score of 71.2 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (67 reviews), the company exhibits high volatility in service quality and pricing practices. The score reflects a company with capable technicians but serious systemic issues in pricing transparency, project completion follow-through, and office communication. Customers should obtain multiple quotes, verify all charges in writing before service, and confirm completion of all promised work before final payment.

KLM Plumbing demonstrates solid competence across most dimensions, with particular strength in technical expertise and problem-solving ability. However, the score is tempered by significant professionalism concerns: one detailed 1-star review from 2014 documents no-shows, poor communication, and lack of technical knowledge on gas water heaters, which directly contradicts the positive reviews. The 2019 review provides strong evidence of thoroughness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, but most reviews are 5+ years old, limiting recency confidence. The company shows capability for excellent service but has documented reliability issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 6 reviews are from 2014, over 9 years old. Only 1 recent review (2019). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 1-star review (2014-06-19) documents multiple serious failures: no-show with no communication, missed appointments not tracked, plumber lacked knowledge of gas water heaters, poor responsiveness to callbacks. This directly contradicts positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Two reviews consist only of a period '.' with 5-star ratings and identical timestamp (2014-11-19). These appear to be placeholder or spam entries and were excluded from scoring.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Positive reviews praise professionalism and responsiveness; negative review documents opposite. This suggests either service quality has improved significantly since 2014, or quality is highly inconsistent.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 usable reviews limits statistical reliability.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant age of most reviews, and one detailed negative review documenting serious service failures that contradict positive testimonials. The WW Score reflects available data but does not reliably predict current service quality.

Two Brothers Home Services demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication. Pricing appears fair based on one explicit mention of competitive rates relative to competitors. Project completion shows solid follow-through, including a callback to address a defective part, though the sample size is small. Technical experience is not explicitly discussed in any review, limiting assessment of skill depth.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Review from 2016 is 8+ years old; only 1 review from past 12 months (2024)
• First review is generic with no specific details about work performed or outcomes
• Experience dimension has no data — cannot assess technical skill or problem-solving ability
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention; confidence is limited

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and recency skew, with most data from 2016 and 2022. The score reflects available evidence but is not statistically robust and may shift significantly with additional recent reviews.

J E Turnbaugh Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with two highly detailed 5-star reviews praising diagnostic skills, problem-solving, and thoroughness. Professionalism is consistently noted across all reviews, including responsiveness, cleanliness, and pleasant demeanor. However, pricing is a significant weakness: one detailed 2-star review explicitly criticizes inflated travel-time billing practices and lack of preparedness, resulting in unnecessary costs to the customer. The company's willingness to wait for the owner to arrive and bill only after work proves permanent shows integrity, but the travel-time billing model and delayed invoicing undermine customer trust on value.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are from 2018 and 2017 (5-7 years old). Only one review is recent (2021). Older reviews may not reflect current business practices.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review explicitly criticizes billing practices (travel-time charges, delayed invoicing), while other reviews mention 'very reasonable' pricing. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or variable customer perception based on job type.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits confidence in overall assessment. Additional recent reviews would strengthen reliability.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and recency issues (2 of 3 reviews are 5+ years old). The pricing dimension is particularly unreliable with only 2 mentions. The score reflects strong technical competence and professionalism but is significantly dragged down by documented pricing concerns that may or may not persist today.

Gladhill Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and responsiveness in three of four reviews, with long-term client relationships spanning decades indicating reliable workmanship. However, a severe 2016 complaint regarding poor communication, inflexibility, and unresponsive customer service significantly impacts the professionalism score. The company excels at completing jobs efficiently and possessing deep technical knowledge, but professionalism is undermined by documented communication failures and unwillingness to accommodate customer needs. The WW Score of 78.3 reflects solid core competency offset by critical service delivery gaps.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are older than 5 years (2023, 2019, 2018, 2016). Only one review from past 12 months. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Extreme polarity (three 5-star vs. one 1-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests potential selection bias or significant operational changes over time.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Three reviews contain nearly identical praise structure ('Great Customer Service,' 'Great Professional Staff,' 'always responsive,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. Generic language and emphasis on relationship longevity rather than job quality raises authenticity concerns.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: 2016 review documents serious professionalism failures including non-responsiveness to scheduling requests, inflexibility, and dismissive owner interaction. This directly contradicts claims of responsiveness in other reviews.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total provides insufficient data volume for high-confidence scoring. Score should be treated as preliminary.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant age of most data (only 1 recent review), and polarized ratings suggesting either major operational changes or potential review authenticity issues. The score reflects a company with strong technical capabilities but documented communication and customer service vulnerabilities that warrant direct verification before engagement.