Find Nearby Plumbers In Boston, Massachusetts

Frank Formica demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high mention counts supporting reliable scoring. Professionalism is his strongest area (87.5), with 24 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and courteous demeanor. Pricing scores well at 86.0 based on 15 mentions of fair, transparent, and competitive rates. Project completion (85.0, 20 mentions) shows solid follow-through and job finishing, though three negative reviews suggest occasional inconsistency. Experience (82.0, 16 mentions) reflects strong technical knowledge and problem-solving, though one 2013 review questioned competence on a faucet replacement. The WW Score of 84.2 reflects a trustworthy, professional contractor with minor reliability concerns.

• Three negative reviews (1-star ratings in 2019, 2013, 2013, and 3-star in 2012) create notable outliers. The 2013 review questioning competence on faucet work and the 2019 review about being 'not interested' in certain jobs suggest occasional service inconsistency.
• One 2013 review (Candid R.) explicitly questions authenticity of other reviews, noting they may not reflect actual work performed. This raises minor concerns about review authenticity but does not constitute clear evidence of fake reviews.
• Two empty reviews (5-star with no text, 2021 and 2020) provide no usable data but do not suggest fraud.
• Recency note: Most reviews are from 2012-2019 (older than 1 year). Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 1 from 2021 provide recent data. Older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• Despite negative reviews, the overwhelming majority (28 of 33) are 5-star with detailed, specific praise. No clear pattern of fake reviews detected, but age of dataset limits confidence in current performance.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable for historical performance but should be treated with moderate caution due to review age (most from 2012-2019) and three credible negative reviews suggesting occasional service inconsistency; recommend seeking recent references before engaging for complex work.

I&C Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication across 16 reviews. Project completion is reliable with 14 mentions of timely, thorough work and follow-through on callbacks. Technical expertise is evident in 11 reviews highlighting skilled problem-solving and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness: while most reviews praise competitive rates, one detailed 2020 review explicitly criticizes opaque pricing structure ($245/hour per task, undisclosed assistant charges, travel fees, half-hour rounding), and a 2018 review flags lack of transparency regarding rate changes between visits. The WW Score of 84.2 reflects strong execution offset by legitimate pricing transparency concerns.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Two reviews (2020-08-24 and 2018-05-13) explicitly criticize pricing practices—hidden charges, unclear rate structures, and lack of upfront disclosure of assistant/travel fees. This contradicts the 'fair pricing' narrative in other reviews and suggests inconsistent or non-transparent quoting practices.
• RECENCY BIAS: 14 of 18 reviews are from 2017–2019 (4+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2020–2023. Recent pricing complaint (2020) is more relevant than older positive reviews. Current pricing practices may differ from historical reputation.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN IN POSITIVE REVIEWS: Multiple 5-star reviews use similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'can't say enough good things,' 'fantastic,' 'best') with minimal specific detail. While not conclusive fake review evidence, the consistency warrants noting. However, reviews do contain specific details (names, situations, technical issues) that suggest authenticity.
• ASSISTANT RATE AMBIGUITY: 2018 review reveals that assistant labor is charged additively but not clearly communicated upfront, creating billing surprises. This is a systemic transparency issue, not isolated incident.

This score is reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion (HIGH confidence, 14–16 mentions each), but pricing assessment carries MODERATE confidence due to only 7 mentions and conflicting signals—most praise competitive rates, but two detailed reviews expose serious transparency gaps. The 4+ year age of most reviews reduces confidence in current pricing practices. Recommend requesting itemized quotes in writing before engaging.

Daniel Cadotte Plumbing and Heating has a strong and well-documented track record across all four scoring dimensions, supported by a large volume of reviews spanning nearly two decades. Professionalism scores well overall, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior, though a small number of older reviews cite a missed appointment, a rude phone interaction, and at least two instances of promised follow-up that never materialized, preventing a higher score. Pricing is consistently described as fair, competitive, or below competing quotes, with several reviewers specifically noting Dan came in lower than other contractors and one instance where he charged less than estimated and another where he issued a refund — however, two reviewers noted prices felt high, keeping the score conservative. Project completion is a clear strength: the majority of detailed reviews describe jobs finished on time, on budget, with thorough cleanup and follow-through including post-installation check-ins, though one review noted incomplete work with a snake left in a drain and another described a multi-visit resolution that took longer than expected. Experience and technical skill are among the most praised attributes, with multiple reviewers referencing inspector praise, correct diagnosis after other plumbers failed, and deep knowledge of steam systems, boilers, and gas conversions.

• 22 reviews contain no usable text (blank, 'unknown', '.', '...', or single-word entries like 'great service') and were excluded from dimension scoring. These inflate the total review count without contributing evidence.
• Three reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same detailed review dated 2024-03-04, and two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates dated 2019-01-24 and 2019-01-25. These were counted as single mentions per dimension to avoid score inflation.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 5 years, with many dating back to 2004–2016. While recency weighting was applied, the older reviews still contribute to the overall picture. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) remain consistently positive.
• One review (Rating: 1.0, 2006-09-25) describes a rude and discourteous phone interaction. One review (Rating: 2.0, 2007-01-17) describes a failure to follow up after initial contact. One review (Rating: 1.0, 2005-07-15) reports no callback at all. These negative signals are real but older and low in frequency relative to the total volume.
• One review (Rating: 3.0, 2022-12-28) explicitly notes incomplete work — a snake left in the drain — which is a direct project completion concern and was weighted accordingly.
• One review (Rating: 3.0, 2012-11-15) describes a multi-visit resolution where a fix created a new problem, requiring additional return visits beyond what was expected.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews with substantial usable content across all four dimensions, and is considered highly reliable, though the presence of duplicate reviews, 22 content-free entries, and a small number of negative signals around follow-through and responsiveness introduce minor downward pressure that is appropriately reflected in the scores.

Mouradian Plumbing and Brennan Plumbing both draw overwhelmingly positive feedback across a large review set spanning nearly two decades, with professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill consistently praised. The professionalism score is strong but modestly penalized by a handful of explicit complaints about no-callbacks, a missed appointment, and one unprofessional billing interaction. Pricing is generally described as fair, competitive, and transparent, though two reviews cite a $500 diagnostic quote and a perception of above-market pricing, preventing a higher score. Project completion is well-supported with numerous accounts of jobs finished same-day or next-day, clean workmanship, and honored estimates, but a notable failure to correctly diagnose and fix a leak (resulting in a repeat problem) and one abandoned appointment weigh against a perfect score. Experience scores highly given repeated mentions of skilled diagnostics, complex installations, and knowledgeable technicians across both companies.

• 13 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank body, rating only) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews use generic phrases ('great service', 'highly recommend', 'excellent work') with no specifics — these were counted only where at least one scoreable dimension could be inferred.
• This review set appears to cover TWO distinct companies: Mouradian Plumbing & Heating and Brennan Plumbing & Heating. The WW Score reflects the combined dataset. Scores may not be fully representative of either company individually.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 50+) are dated prior to 2022, with many from 2010–2016. Per recency rules, more weight was given to the 20+ reviews from 2022–2025, but the older reviews were not discarded as they show consistent long-term patterns.
• One review (2012) describes a clear service failure: incorrect diagnosis, failure to fix the leak, overpriced parts, weeks of non-response, and a dismissive callback — this was weighted negatively in professionalism and project completion.
• One review (2014) describes a missed appointment with no advance notice — weighted negatively in professionalism.
• One review (2023) describes being quoted nearly $500 just for a site visit — weighted negatively in pricing.
• One review (2023) describes four unreturned messages over two weeks — weighted negatively in professionalism.
• One review (2018) describes refusal to use modern materials and unstrapped piping — weighted negatively in experience.
• No strong fake review pattern detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are present and credible. Confidence in authenticity is reasonable.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and multi-year review set with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable scores possible — however, users should note the dataset blends two separate companies and spans nearly 20 years, and should weight the most recent reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

Mr. Fix It Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and professional demeanor across hundreds of individual mentions. Project completion scores are strong, with numerous reviewers noting jobs finished same-day or next-day, callbacks honored, and warranty coordination handled proactively on behalf of customers. Experience scores are supported by detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics, complex jobs (boiler replacements, full bathroom remodels, burst pipes, warranty navigations), and honest assessments that saved customers money. Pricing is generally rated favorably — described as reasonable and fair — but is tempered by a handful of credible complaints about charges feeling excessive for short jobs, a cost overrun versus estimate, and one customer who felt scammed by a diagnosis fee that was not disclosed upfront. Professionalism is docked slightly due to a recurring pattern across 6–7 negative reviews citing no-shows, missed appointment windows, failure to follow up, and one instance of the owner allegedly denying his identity on a callback — these are serious reliability concerns that prevent a higher score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., the 'Mr Fix It is top notch' review appears twice on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the long 'I love Mr. Fixit' review appears twice on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03; the '110 year old house' review appears twice on 2020-02-06). These duplicates were counted once each for scoring purposes and flagged as potentially inflated.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (MODERATE): One 1-star reviewer explicitly states 'All these reviews seem fake to me and extremely similar.' While this alone is not conclusive, combined with the confirmed duplicate reviews and a high volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews ('Awesome!', 'Everything went fine.', 'It was very good. It was nice work.', 'Great!'), there is a moderate risk of review padding. Confidence is maintained at HIGH due to the large volume of detailed, specific, credible reviews, but this pattern warrants caution.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY COMPLAINTS: At least 5 distinct negative reviews (1-star) cite the contractor failing to show up for scheduled appointments, not calling to explain absences, or being unreachable after initial contact. One review describes the owner allegedly pretending not to be 'David' when called back about an unresolved leak. These are serious professionalism red flags that meaningfully reduce the professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple credible negative reviews cite unexpected charges, undisclosed diagnosis fees, and labor costs significantly above estimates. One reviewer paid $280 for 20 minutes of drain work and felt taken advantage of. Another reported labor at approximately $145/hour with no upfront disclosure. These are offset by many positive pricing mentions but cannot be ignored.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (pre-June 2024). The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive but include two confirmed duplicates. Older negative reviews (2014–2020) may reflect past behavior that has since improved, but the 2024 no-show complaint suggests some reliability issues persist.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating, dated 2025-05-07 and 2024-08-10). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SPANISH-LANGUAGE REVIEW: One review ('Puedo recomendarlo para todos los que necesitan teléfonos fijos') appears to reference 'landline phones' rather than plumbing, suggesting it may be a misplaced or erroneous review. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review dataset spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence overall, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a moderate fake-review risk signal, and a consistent minority pattern of serious no-show and pricing transparency complaints that are credible and specific.

Mouradian Plumbing & Heating receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism and responsiveness being the most frequently praised attributes — reviewers consistently highlight prompt callbacks, courteous staff, and clean job sites. Project completion scores are strong, with numerous accounts of jobs finished on time or ahead of schedule, though three negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) describe a no-show without notice, an improperly installed water heater that failed days later causing a callback that was never honored, and a costly bathroom remodel that allegedly resulted in major leaks requiring a second plumber — these meaningfully temper the otherwise high scores. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting estimates came in below competitors, though one reviewer described a $500 diagnostic fee as excessive and another felt they were being steered toward an unnecessary upsell. Experience scores are high, supported by detailed accounts of complex boiler replacements, system conversions, and creative problem-solving in older homes, though the negative workmanship complaints prevent a top-tier score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates submitted on the same date (e.g., multiple pairs from 2024-02-24, 2024-01-08, 2021-11-05, 2021-02-23, 2020-09-19, 2019-11-30, 2019-05-17, 2019-04-08, 2018-09-17, 2018-07-20, 2018-02-02, 2017-06-22, 2017-02-05, 2016-11-10, 2016-10-05, 2016-03-09, 2021-01-21, 2021-03-06, 2021-05-29, 2021-06-24, 2021-12-30, 2019-08-18, 2019-09-26, 2019-03-03, 2019-03-21, 2017-03-22, 2023-10-26, 2023-01-28, 2022-08-24, 2020-04-21). These duplicates inflate the apparent review count and may indicate platform cross-posting or review manipulation. Duplicate reviews were counted as single data points for scoring purposes.
• NEGATIVE WORKMANSHIP INCIDENT (2022-04-05, 1-star): Reviewer alleges a bathroom remodel costing approximately $10,000 resulted in major leaks 18 months later, requiring a second plumber to fix. This is a serious quality and accountability concern.
• NEGATIVE CALLBACK FAILURE (2023-11-17, 1-star): Reviewer describes a water heater that failed two days after installation (Thanksgiving), followed by multiple broken appointments and no-shows without communication over several weeks. This directly contradicts the responsiveness narrative in positive reviews.
• NEGATIVE NO-SHOW (2020-08-31, 1-star): Reviewer reports a no-show with no call, and when rescheduled, describes a worker as arrogant and insulting.
• NEGATIVE NO-SHOW (2018-01-24, 1-star): Reviewer scheduled a job two weeks in advance; crew arrived 4 hours late with no communication.
• PRICING CONCERN (2018-10-24, 2-star): Reviewer alleges upselling tactics and inflated code-violation claims that appeared designed to steer toward a more expensive option; their regular plumber resolved the issue for less than half the quoted price.
• PRICING CONCERN (2023-06-10, 1-star): Reviewer was quoted nearly $500 just for a site visit, with no labor or parts included.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2019–2025, providing a reasonably current picture. However, a significant number of older reviews (2016–2018) are duplicates and carry reduced weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate review patterns that inflate apparent consensus, and at least four substantiated negative incidents involving no-shows, a failed installation, and alleged workmanship defects — suggesting that while Mouradian Plumbing performs excellently in the majority of cases, accountability and follow-through may be inconsistent.