Find Nearby Plumbers In Boston, Massachusetts

Mike personally receives strong praise across multiple reviews for being professional, knowledgeable, polite, and reasonably priced, with several reviewers explicitly calling out fair rates and accurate estimates. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern: multiple reviewers across different years report that Mike or his office became unresponsive, stopped returning calls, and in at least two cases left jobs unfinished or unaddressed after initial visits. The subcontractor quality issue raised in one review also reflects negatively on the overall operation. Pricing scores remain relatively strong as the explicit mentions are almost universally positive. The experience dimension scores well based on direct mentions of skill and problem-solving, but the volume of responsiveness and follow-through failures prevents a high overall score.

• Recurring unresponsiveness pattern: At least 3 separate reviews (2019, 2014, 2017) explicitly report Mike or his company failing to return calls or follow up on jobs, suggesting a systemic reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.
• Subcontractor concern: One review explicitly warns that subcontractors used by M&M are described as incompetent and overpriced, which reflects on the business even if Mike personally is well-regarded.
• Office/admin complaints: Two reviews flag poor customer service from the office manager, including one quote describing the plumber as unable to be 'bothered by little things,' which is a professionalism concern at the business level.
• Review recency: The majority of positive reviews are from 2013–2016, with the most recent reviews (2017, 2019) being negative. This recency trend is a significant warning sign and suggests possible decline in service quality over time.
• No reviews dated within the past several years, making it impossible to assess current operational status. One reviewer in 2014 speculated the company may no longer be in operation.

The WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to mention volume across all dimensions, but the strong recency skew toward negative reviews and the possibility that the business is no longer actively operating means this score should be treated with caution and verified with current sources before hiring.

CRoy Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, technical skill, and fair pricing, but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative incidents. The most damaging flags are: a customer reporting that Chris texted a derogatory comment ('strange lady') about them by accident — a direct professionalism failure — and a separate customer reporting an abandoned bathroom renovation with no permits pulled and a deposit not returned, which is a severe project completion failure. Pricing is generally praised as fair and transparent, but one reviewer noted being charged triple the expected rate for after-hours work, introducing inconsistency. Experience scores are relatively strong, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable, thorough workmanship, but the abandoned job and permit violation temper that score significantly. The review set spans 2014–2023, meaning many positive reviews are quite old and may not reflect current service quality.

• SERIOUS FLAG — One reviewer (2019) reports an abandoned bathroom renovation: no permits pulled, deposit not returned, and unfinished work left behind. This is a significant project completion and legal/ethical concern.
• SERIOUS FLAG — One reviewer (2021) reports that Chris accidentally texted them a derogatory message calling them a 'strange lady' while attempting to refer them to another tradesman. This is a direct and documented professionalism failure.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY — One reviewer (2020) noted being charged triple the expected rate for after-hours work, while most other reviewers praise pricing as fair. After-hours surcharges may be applied inconsistently or without clear upfront communication.
• RECENCY CONCERN — The majority of positive reviews are from 2014–2019. Only 3 reviews are from 2020 or later, and two of those are negative (1-star). The trend of recent reviews skews more negative, which may indicate a decline in service quality.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED — Reviews vary in length, detail, and tone. Negative reviews include specific incidents. No suspicious uniformity detected.
• RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN — One reviewer (2022) reports receiving no reply to multiple estimate requests before being told the contractor was not interested, suggesting selective or inconsistent client communication.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but the presence of two serious negative incidents (abandoned job with missing permits and a documented unprofessional communication) means the score should be treated as a cautionary moderate rating rather than a clean endorsement.

Rooterman earns solid marks for professionalism, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians across many years of reviews. However, pricing is a persistent and significant concern — multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly called out costs as excessive, with specific complaints about $300/hour rates, $890 hydro-jet jobs, and charges that far exceeded what competitors later quoted. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: several reviewers reported that the problem was not resolved after payment, that callbacks were ignored or refused, and in at least two cases the customer had to fix the issue themselves or hire another company. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and skill, but offset by incidents of misdiagnosis, property damage during service, and failed repairs. The combination of recurring pricing complaints and incomplete job resolution pulls the WW Score meaningfully below what the volume of positive reviews might otherwise suggest.

• Several reviews contain no substantive content (e.g., 'no comment', 'Good', 'Great', '{0}', 'Nothing at this time') — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• At least 4 reviews explicitly describe jobs that were not fixed after payment, with the contractor either refusing to return, demanding full additional payment, or being unreachable — this is a material project completion risk.
• Multiple reviews spanning 2017–2024 independently cite pricing as significantly above market rate, suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2019-01-28) describes property damage (scratched toilet, dented ceiling) and alleged misrepresentation of repair needs, which is a serious workmanship and ethics flag.
• One review (2018-10-07) describes a failed repair where the customer ultimately fixed the problem themselves using rented equipment after the contractor declined to return.
• Review dated 2020-09-17 describes a contractor who took full payment without resolving the issue and did not respond to a refund request — a significant trust and completion concern.
• A large portion of reviews are older than 3 years (many from 2006–2020), which limits the reliability of the score as a predictor of current performance. Recent reviews (2023–2024) are more favorable, suggesting possible improvement, but the sample is small.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, which supports authenticity across the dataset.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring and independently corroborated complaints about pricing and incomplete job resolution before hiring.

Mike receives consistently strong praise across all six reviews for professionalism, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out punctuality, responsiveness, clear communication, and a friendly attitude — including availability for emergency situations. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs that were finished thoroughly, passed inspections, and included proper cleanup. His technical experience is highlighted across diverse tasks including steam radiator work, pipe relocation, water meter installation, and emergency pipe repair, suggesting solid breadth of skill. Pricing receives only a single mention — one reviewer describes him as 'fair in his pricing' — which is positive but insufficient to score with confidence. Overall the picture is of a reliable, communicative, and capable plumber, though the small review pool and age of the reviews limit full confidence.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific job details and varied language that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are older than 12 months. The most recent review is from December 2019 and the oldest is from December 2016. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Small sample size (6 reviews total) limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to consistent and specific positive feedback across all reviews, but is significantly limited by the small sample size and the fact that all reviews are more than four years old, making it difficult to assess Mike's current quality of service.

Vitalii demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently fast response times, quick scheduling, and pleasant demeanor across multiple reviews. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with customers noting savings versus competitors. However, project completion shows a critical weakness: one review explicitly states the toilet still does not flush properly after service, and another indicates he was too busy to complete an urgent job. Technical skill appears solid for routine tasks (gas line disconnection, water heater replacement), but the incomplete toilet repair raises concerns about follow-through and problem-solving on complex issues.

• CRITICAL: One 2-star review (2024-01-02) explicitly states the primary job (toilet repair) was not completed successfully—toilet still not flushing properly. This is a major red flag for project completion reliability.
• One review (2023-11-13) initially gave 1 star due to inability to reach the contractor, later adjusted to 4 stars after discovering Yelp messaging worked. This suggests communication channel issues, though partially mitigated.
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits confidence in overall score. Most reviews are positive, but the one negative completion outcome is significant.
• Review from 2023-08-03 is lengthy and highly detailed with specific praise; while not necessarily fake, the verbose nature and multiple compliments should be weighted appropriately against the concrete failure in the 2024-01-02 review.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and the presence of a documented project failure. The WW Score of 82.3 is artificially elevated by strong professionalism and pricing scores; the project completion dimension is significantly dragged down by explicit evidence of incomplete work, which directly contradicts the overall positive sentiment in most reviews. Potential customers should prioritize the 2-star review as a warning sign regarding follow-through on complex repairs.

Ace Plumbing Supply earns strong marks for professionalism and technical experience, with the majority of reviewers explicitly praising knowledgeable, patient, and friendly staff across many years of visits. Pricing is noted favorably in a handful of reviews, with one reviewer specifically stating prices were competitive with or slightly below Home Depot. Project completion is scored more conservatively because this is a supply house rather than a contracting service, so 'completion' is interpreted as fulfilling customer needs and following through on requests — and one notable 2-star review explicitly describes a failure to follow through on promised callbacks, which meaningfully drags this dimension down. The experience dimension is the strongest signal in the dataset, with multiple detailed, specific accounts of staff solving complex plumbing and heating problems quickly and accurately. Overall confidence is tempered by the age of most reviews, with the majority predating 2020.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 9 reviews is from the past 12 months (February 2023). Six of nine reviews are from 2014 or earlier, with some dating back to 2009 and 2012. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL: One 2-star review (March 2016) explicitly describes a failure in responsiveness — staff promised callbacks multiple times and never followed through, resulting in a lost sale. This is a direct negative data point for professionalism and project completion.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Several include specific anecdotes, named staff members (Bob, Kevin, Jim, Joe), and personal context. This increases credibility.
• CONTEXT NOTE: This appears to be a plumbing supply store, not a contracting or installation service. Scoring dimensions like 'project completion' have been interpreted in the context of fulfilling customer supply needs and follow-through on service promises rather than physical job completion.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to strong qualitative detail in most reviews and no fake review concerns, but is significantly limited by the age of the data — 8 of 9 reviews are more than 3 years old, and the business context as a supply house rather than a contractor reduces direct applicability of some scoring dimensions.