Find Nearby Plumbers In Revere, Massachusetts

York Plumbing (Greg) demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, including punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor. Pricing is fair and transparent with multiple customers noting competitive rates and no hidden charges. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished thoroughly and follow-up callbacks honored. Technical expertise is evident through problem-solving ability, knowledge of complex plumbing systems, and willingness to go beyond standard scope. The two negative reviews from 2014 citing non-responsiveness represent significant outliers but are substantially outweighed by 27 positive reviews spanning 2012–2017.

• Two reviews with minimal/no text content (ratings 5.0 dated 2015-11-12 and 2014-06-27 marked as 'unknown' and '.') reduce data quality slightly but do not materially affect scoring.
• Two negative reviews (1-star, dated 2014-06-30 and 2014-08-28) both cite failure to return calls and follow up on scheduled work. These are serious responsiveness failures that contradict the overwhelmingly positive pattern. However, they are isolated to 2014 and may reflect a past operational issue that was corrected, as no similar complaints appear in 2012–2013 or 2015–2017 reviews.
• Review dates span 2012–2017 with concentration in 2012–2014 (22 reviews) and fewer recent reviews (2015–2017: 7 reviews). Recency is limited; most data is 6+ years old. Current service quality cannot be fully assessed.
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, and realistic problem descriptions. Positive reviews are substantive and credible.

This WW Score of 88.2 is reliable and well-supported by 29 usable reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the age of most reviews (2012–2014) and the presence of two serious responsiveness failures in 2014 introduce some uncertainty about current operational performance. The score reflects historical performance and should be validated with recent customer references before engaging for critical work.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for courteous behavior, communication, cleanliness, and responsiveness. Project completion is reliably mentioned as on-time and on-budget with high-quality workmanship. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned. Experience and technical knowledge are acknowledged in several reviews, though fewer in number. The primary concern is that most reviews are significantly dated (2006–2015), with only one review from the past decade, limiting confidence in current performance standards.

• RECENCY ISSUE: 8 of 10 reviews are from 2006–2015 (9+ years old). Only 1 review is from recent years. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: 2 reviews contain only ratings with no text ('unknown' or '.'), reducing usable data to 8 reviews.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only 2 mentions of pricing across all reviews. Score is conservative due to limited evidence.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the age of the review dataset; the contractor's current performance may differ significantly from practices demonstrated 9–18 years ago.

All three reviews speak positively about Silas and the Montrond Company across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is consistently highlighted — reviewers note timely arrival, clear communication, and courteous behavior, including post-job follow-up offers. Project completion is well-supported: all three reviews describe complex jobs (basement shower installation, HVAC replacement, full gas and piping overhaul) that were finished successfully and to the customer's satisfaction. Experience scores are bolstered by the technical complexity of the work described — multi-trade jobs involving plumbing, HVAC, carpentry, and gas line installation — all completed with apparent skill. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews, with one reviewer noting that a higher quote was justified by the contractor honoring his word and not changing the price mid-job, and another explicitly calling pricing 'fair and honest.' Scores are kept conservative given the very small review pool and the age of the reviews.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• All three reviews are dated between 2015 and 2018 — none are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). This means the data is 6–9 years old and may not reflect current performance.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, delays, or areas for improvement. While this could reflect genuine quality, it also limits the ability to assess consistency under adverse conditions.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 3 reviews, all of which are between 6 and 9 years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current performance with confidence.

Roger demonstrates generally strong responsiveness and professionalism across most reviews, with multiple customers praising his promptness and friendly demeanor. However, the 3-star review from September 2024 — the most recent review — raises meaningful concerns about scheduling communication and incomplete workmanship, specifically a tilted appliance installation that required the customer to correct. Project completion is scored conservatively because while most jobs appear to have been finished, the most recent review documents a quality shortfall that required follow-up by the homeowner. Pricing is mentioned positively in only one review, so that score carries very limited weight. Overall, the small review pool of just 5 reviews limits confidence significantly, and the most recent negative experience tempers what would otherwise be a higher score.

• Very small review pool (5 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Most recent review (September 2024) is the only 3-star review and documents both a scheduling/communication failure and a workmanship issue (tilted appliance installation). This is given elevated weight due to recency.
• Three of the four positive reviews are from 2023 or early 2024, meaning the most current signal about service quality is the negative review.
• No strong fake review indicators detected, though the positive reviews are somewhat generic in places. Not flagged as suspicious but noted.
• Pricing data is based on a single mention — that score carries minimal statistical weight.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment; a minimum of 10–15 reviews would be needed to produce a reliably stable score.

Maria's Oil shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism and pricing receive moderate scores based on positive feedback about customer service and competitive rates, but are tempered by one serious incident involving property damage and negligent delivery practices. Project completion is significantly dragged down by documented failures including a damaged door latch, tank overflow, and unreported oil spill—critical failures for an oil delivery service. Experience ratings are supported by long-term customer loyalty and responsive emergency service, but the sample size is small. The overall WW Score of 73.8 reflects a company with quality intentions undermined by operational execution failures.

• CRITICAL: One 2-star review (2021-03-21) documents serious service failures including property damage (loosened door latch) and environmental hazard (oil spill in backyard). These are not minor complaints and directly contradict claims of 'quality service' in other reviews.
• Three of four reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise ('great,' 'quality,' 'very happy') lacking specific operational details. The 2-star review is notably more specific about failures, suggesting potential selection bias in positive reviews.
• All reviews are 3+ years old (oldest from 2017, most recent from 2021). No recent reviews available to assess current service standards.
• Small sample size (n=4) limits statistical reliability. Confidence in overall score is constrained by limited data volume.
• Project completion dimension heavily penalized due to documented delivery failures and environmental damage—core service failures for an oil delivery company.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), age of data (all pre-2022), and conflicting evidence between generic positive reviews and one detailed negative review documenting serious operational failures. The score reflects real concerns about execution reliability despite apparent customer loyalty.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.