Find Nearby Plumbers In Lawrence, Massachusetts

Rhino Rooter (David) earns strong marks for responsiveness, punctuality, and completing drain and sewer jobs effectively across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade. The majority of customers praise prompt arrival, friendly demeanor, and thorough cleanup, which drives solid professionalism and project completion scores. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — consistently cite overpricing, lack of upfront pricing transparency, invoice disputes, and in several cases rude or evasive behavior when problems arose post-service. The pricing dimension is notably dragged down by recurring complaints about charges well above market rate, refusal to provide itemized invoices, and at least one instance of a disputed refund that was promised but never delivered. Experience scores well overall given David's demonstrated technical problem-solving ability, but one case of a failed drain clearing and a crooked garbage disposal installation temper that score slightly.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years (2013, 2015, 2016, 2020, 2021, 2024) consistently cite overcharging, lack of upfront pricing disclosure, and refusal to provide invoices. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: At least three negative reviews describe David becoming rude, dismissive, or hostile when challenged on pricing or when follow-up work was requested. One review describes name-calling. Another describes a tech disposing of debris in a toilet without flushing.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: One review (2017) describes David accepting full advance payment for a sump pump replacement and never completing the work despite repeated follow-ups. One review (2024) describes a crooked garbage disposal installation with missing warranty paperwork and no response to follow-up contacts.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The majority of positive reviews contain specific details (names, job types, timeframes, repeat usage over years), which reduces fake review suspicion. However, a handful of very short generic reviews ('Great job', 'Outstanding service', 'Excellent Service') with no detail contribute minimally to scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews (approximately 40+) are from 2024–2025 and are overwhelmingly positive, which is a positive recency signal. However, the negative reviews are spread across the full timeline including 2024, indicating the pricing and professionalism issues have not been fully resolved.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Pricing score was significantly reduced due to the volume and consistency of overcharging complaints. Professionalism score was moderated due to documented instances of rudeness and unprofessional conduct, despite the majority of reviews being positive.

This WW Score is based on 65 reviews with HIGH data volume and should be considered moderately reliable — the score reflects a genuinely mixed contractor profile where strong operational performance (responsiveness, job completion) is offset by a well-documented and recurring pattern of pricing opacity and occasional post-service conduct issues that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

Alexander Plumbing earns strong marks for technical skill and workmanship, with numerous reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians like Paul, Adam, and Patrick who go above and beyond to fully resolve problems and explain their work clearly. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by a recurring pattern of complaints about rude, dismissive, or explosive behavior — primarily attributed to the owner — spanning multiple years and multiple independent reviewers, which cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents. Project completion is similarly mixed: many reviews praise same-day or next-day responsiveness and thorough job completion, but several credible negative reviews describe no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, and at least one case of abandoned work mid-project. Pricing is the most contested dimension, with a meaningful minority of reviewers describing charges they felt were excessive or inconsistent with quoted amounts, while the majority found pricing fair or reasonable. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled technicians and strong operational capability, undermined by inconsistent customer-facing behavior and reliability issues that have persisted across many years.

• ATTITUDE/TEMPERAMENT PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews across different years (2016, 2017, 2019, 2021) describe the owner or a senior figure as rude, dismissive, explosive, or having a 'bad attitude.' This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe scheduled appointments where the plumber never showed and never called (2015, 2016, 2018, 2021). One review describes work being abandoned mid-project after multiple visits.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Three reviews explicitly describe feeling overcharged — one citing $187.50 for 11 minutes of work, another citing ~$700 for one hour with minimal materials, and another citing $400 as excessive for a simple shower valve. These are specific and credible.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2017-12-16 appear to be near-identical in content (Rheem water heater refusal). These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. One was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2013–2021, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025. This may indicate genuine improvement in service quality over time, or it may reflect a shift in review demographics. Scores were weighted toward more recent reviews but older negatives were not discarded as the patterns they describe (attitude, no-shows) have some corroboration in the 2021 period.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW: Several 2025 reviews share similar phrasing ('prompt, professional, reasonable') but most contain specific names, job details, and narrative context. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, though the uniformly 5-star recent cluster warrants mild caution.
• ONE 1-STAR REVIEW (2021) describes a detailed, specific incident of a flapper chain left with too much slack causing a recurring problem, and an explosive owner response when the customer called back. The level of technical specificity and narrative detail makes this review credible.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of owner temperament issues and no-show incidents that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong technical performance of the field crew.

NETR has a deeply split review profile. A strong majority of older reviews (2015–2019) describe highly professional, skilled technicians who communicated well, arrived on time, and completed installations cleanly and efficiently — driving solid scores in professionalism and experience. However, a cluster of serious negative reviews from 2021–2023 significantly drags down project completion and professionalism scores: multiple customers report faulty line sets installed by NETR causing property damage, warranty disputes where the company refused to honor commitments, threatening behavior toward a long-standing customer over a billing dispute, loud and unprofessional on-site staff, and one alarming report of jewelry theft by a worker. The warranty and workmanship failure pattern across at least three independent reviews is particularly damaging to the project completion dimension. Pricing scores are moderate — several reviewers found pricing fair or competitive, but the company's refusal to cover repair costs under warranty introduces a hidden-cost risk that tempers this dimension.

• SERIOUS WARRANTY VIOLATION PATTERN: At least three independent reviews (2021 and 2022) describe NETR installing faulty line sets that caused freon leaks, water damage, and mold, then refusing to honor 10–12 year warranties and directing customers to use homeowner's insurance instead. This is a significant and recurring workmanship/accountability failure.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2023) reports missing jewelry and valuable items after NETR workers were in their home, filed a police report, and states the owner never followed up after promising to investigate. This is an unresolved serious allegation.
• CUSTOMER THREATENING: One long-standing customer (2021) reports being threatened with lawyers, liens, and collections over a $600 invoice after only 5 weeks, with the company unable to produce proof of prior invoices due to a claimed computer crash. The owner reportedly hung up on the customer.
• UNRESOLVED FAULTY UNIT: A 2023 review describes a faulty LG unit that NETR technicians confirmed was defective but the company refused to replace pending a manufacturer visit, leaving the customer without working AC.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: A 2021 review describes significant property damage to a newly renovated space caused by NETR workers, combined with loud swearing on-site, and a unit falling off the wall post-installation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2021–2023) are predominantly negative (1–2 stars), while the bulk of positive reviews are from 2015–2019. This suggests a possible decline in service quality or accountability over time. More recent data should be weighted more heavily.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: While many positive reviews share similar praise themes (professional, courteous, clean), they contain specific staff names, project details, and varied language. No strong fake review pattern detected among positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews spanning 2015–2023 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the sharp negative trend in post-2021 reviews — including warranty fraud allegations, theft, property damage, and threatening conduct — means prospective customers should treat recent reviews as significantly more predictive of current service quality than the overall score suggests.

John at Pipes Plumbing and Heating demonstrates strong technical skill and fair pricing, with multiple reviewers praising his workmanship, knowledge, and competitive rates. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by a recurring and serious pattern of unresponsiveness — at least four reviews explicitly describe John failing to return calls, ghosting clients mid-project, or skipping scheduled appointments without notice. Project completion is similarly impacted, as two reviewers describe jobs that were never finished because John stopped communicating entirely, forcing them to hire other plumbers. When John does show up and engage, the quality of his work is consistently rated highly, but the reliability gap is a meaningful and documented concern.

• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 4 reviews (2019-01-08, 2019-06-04, 2015-11-19, and indirectly 2020-03-23) explicitly describe John failing to return calls, going silent mid-project, or skipping appointments. This is a documented behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• ABANDONED WORK: Two reviewers (2019-01-08 rated 2-stars, 2019-06-04 rated 3-stars) describe situations where John stopped responding and the customer had to hire a different plumber to complete the work. This directly impacts project completion scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from August 2023, but the majority of reviews (10 of 15) are from 2013–2019, meaning the dataset skews older. The 2023 reviews are positive, but the negative responsiveness reviews are from 2015–2019. It is unclear whether the responsiveness issues have been resolved.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: Review language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative experiences. No patterns suggesting fabricated reviews were detected.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, but users should weigh the documented pattern of unresponsiveness and abandoned work seriously, as these represent real risk factors when hiring this contractor.

Airco receives strong praise across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers highlighting Joe and Steve's technical knowledge, fair pricing, and professional conduct during installations. Several reviews specifically note that Airco's quotes came in significantly lower than competitors while delivering equal or better quality, and most jobs were completed on time with good follow-through. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2017 describes overcharging, a missing installed component, warranty non-compliance, and repeated failure to respond — this materially drags down scores for project completion and professionalism and cannot be dismissed. A minor professionalism flag also exists from a 2015 review describing a driver representing the company behaving rudely on the road. The score reflects a generally strong contractor with at least one documented serious service failure.

• One 1-star review (2017) describes a serious pattern of failures: overcharging, incomplete installation (missing $800 component), warranty non-honor, and poor responsiveness — this is a significant negative data point and has been weighted accordingly.
• Several highly positive reviews lack specific dates for work performed and use enthusiastic language, but most include enough operational detail (equipment names, team members, specific scenarios) to be considered credible and not flagged as fake.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months (July 2024). Recency weighting is limited; current service quality cannot be fully confirmed from this dataset.
• The 2015 road-rage/bird-flipping review does not assess actual service quality and was counted only as a minor professionalism signal, not a project or experience data point.
• Small total review count (9 reviews) limits statistical reliability. Scores should be interpreted with caution despite HIGH confidence labels on individual dimensions.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the positive signals are consistent and detailed across multiple reviews, but the small sample size, predominantly older review dates, and one serious documented service failure introduce meaningful uncertainty about current and consistent service quality.

Kannan & Pricone demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for responsiveness, skill, and customer service across recent reviews. However, significant pricing concerns emerge from multiple detailed complaints about overcharging, lack of transparent itemization, and labor costs perceived as excessive. Project completion is generally solid with timely service, though a few negative reviews cite incomplete fixes requiring callbacks. The company shows a stark divide between recent 5-star reviews (predominantly 2024-2025) and older 1-star reviews (2011-2018) citing serious issues including unlicensed workers, poor customer service from ownership, and aggressive billing practices.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 27 of 56 reviews are 5-star with minimal detail or generic praise (e.g., 'Always a great experience!', 'Great work, friendly guys'). Multiple reviews contain identical phrasing ('professional', 'prompt', 'highly recommend') suggesting possible review manipulation or template responses.
• RECENCY BIAS: 38 of 56 reviews (68%) are from 2024-2025, while serious complaints are concentrated in 2011-2018. This temporal clustering raises questions about whether recent reviews reflect genuine improvement or review generation campaigns.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple detailed complaints (2014, 2018) document lack of itemized billing, labor rates of $214/hour for <1 hour work, and $1200 charges for 30-minute jobs. One reviewer explicitly states 'These people are thieves' and 'untrustworthy.' These are not isolated complaints.
• LEGAL/LICENSING VIOLATION (2011): One review documents company sending unlicensed plumber to home, violating Massachusetts law. This is a serious compliance issue.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple 1-star reviews (2018) describe owner 'Bill' as rude, dismissive, and sarcastic toward customers with legitimate heating issues. One customer reported being told 'It must be nice sitting on the couch watching TV all day' while waiting for emergency repairs.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One 2024 review reports boiler 'fixed' by company failed immediately when cold weather arrived, suggesting workmanship or diagnostic issues.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings, reducing data quality.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive and suggest strong current performance, the prevalence of generic 5-star reviews, stark contrast with detailed 1-star complaints from 2011-2018 documenting serious issues (unlicensed workers, overcharging, poor ownership conduct), and multiple specific pricing integrity concerns create significant doubt about overall trustworthiness. The company may have improved, but historical patterns of billing opacity and legal violations warrant verification before hiring. Pricing dimension is particularly unreliable due to limited mentions but serious documented concerns.