Find Nearby Plumbers In Gulfport, Mississippi

Professionalism is the strongest signal across these reviews, with multiple reviewers independently describing punctuality, politeness, friendly demeanor, and attentive communication — including one reviewer noting the plumber returned on a Monday to finish an incomplete job without being asked twice. Project completion scores well, with jobs consistently described as finished correctly and thoroughly, though the tub-drain callback in one review and the water meter job being completed quickly both reflect solid follow-through. Experience is supported by references to meticulous workmanship, problem-solving on difficult clogs, and proactive identification of root causes beyond the immediate complaint. Pricing is a mixed signal — two reviews describe fair or discounted pricing, one reviewer is uncertain whether the price was too high, and one explicitly notes pricing can be 'a little steep,' which pulls the score down to a conservative 68. Overall, this contractor presents a consistent and credible positive profile, though the small review pool and age of the data limit full confidence.

• ALL 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative reviews present — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied language that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are between 10 and 17 years old (2007–2014). None fall within the past 12 months, and none fall within the past 5 years. This significantly limits the reliability of the score as a reflection of current service quality.
• Small sample size (8 reviews total) limits statistical confidence across all dimensions.
• Two reviews (2007-05-18) share the exact same date, which is a minor flag, though their content is distinct and specific enough to not suggest fabrication.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the reviews are detailed and consistent enough to suggest authenticity, the entire dataset is over a decade old and the absence of any recent reviews means this score cannot reliably represent the contractor's current quality of service.

High Tide Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with most reviews praising punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship. However, the score is tempered by two significant negative reviews: one alleging collusion in overcharging and lack of pricing transparency (2022), and another documenting a failure to call ahead as promised, resulting in a missed appointment (2019). Pricing feedback is mixed—most reviews cite reasonable/fair rates, but the 2022 review raises serious concerns about equipment cost justification. The majority of positive reviews are older (2017–2020), with limited recent data.

• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: Review dated 2021-11-29 appears to plagiarize the opening phrase ('Literally a life saver and amazing work') from the 2020-09-12 review, then references 'the previous reviewer.' This suggests either fabrication or manipulation of review content.
• SERIOUS PRICING ALLEGATION: 2022 review explicitly accuses contractor of collusion in overcharging and lack of itemization transparency. This directly contradicts the 'fair pricing' narrative in other reviews and warrants investigation.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURE: 2019 review documents clear breach of agreed communication protocol (promised to call before arrival, did not), resulting in missed appointment and customer having to reschedule. This is a documented failure in responsiveness and reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 4+ years old (2017–2020). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and 2019 provide recent data, and both are negative or mixed. Recent trend is unclear but potentially concerning.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 12 reviews total. Confidence in overall score is moderate due to limited data volume and presence of conflicting signals.

This score should be treated with caution. While the majority of reviews are positive and detailed, the presence of a recent serious pricing allegation (2022), a documented communication failure (2019), a suspected fake review (2021), and the age of most positive reviews (pre-2021) create significant uncertainty. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects the mixed signals; it is not a strong endorsement and warrants direct verification of pricing practices and recent service quality before engagement.

Express Service Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally completes work as promised, with multiple reviews praising problem-solving ability and timely job completion. However, pricing practices are inconsistent and problematic: one customer experienced a significant discrepancy between quoted ($250) and invoiced ($300) amounts with undisclosed add-ons, while another appreciated transparent pricing and honesty. Professionalism is mixed—most reviews highlight courteous, friendly technicians and responsive communication, but the first review reveals poor quoting practices and lack of transparency that undermines trust. The company's willingness to offer discounts and acknowledge mistakes is noted, but the pattern suggests pricing integrity issues that warrant caution.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Review 1 (2019) documents explicit quote-to-invoice discrepancy ($250 quoted vs ~$300 invoiced) with undisclosed 'VIP Membership' fee added after initial quote. This is a red flag for deceptive pricing practices.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING NARRATIVE: Review 5 (2011) praises honesty and mentions VIP customer service plan, but Review 1 (2019) shows the same VIP plan being added without customer consent—suggests this may be a recurring problematic practice.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2011, 2016, 2017, 2018). The most recent review (2019) is highly negative and documents dishonest quoting. This temporal pattern suggests potential service quality decline.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews analyzed; confidence in overall score is constrained by small dataset.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews) and significant recency concerns—the most recent review documents serious pricing dishonesty that contradicts older positive reviews, suggesting the company's practices may have deteriorated or become inconsistent over time.

Patterson Plumbing & Heating receives strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, and technical knowledge across many reviews, with specific employees like Tyrus, Caleb, Robert, Mikey, and Joe frequently named for excellent service. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern — multiple independent reviewers across different years describe quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, including a $13,000 quote for 35 feet of pipe, $7,000 for a gas line run for $1,400 elsewhere, $6,000 for a kitchen drain cleared for $78, and $1,500+ to unclog drains. Project completion scores are moderately strong when work is actually performed, but scheduling failures — including no-shows, missed appointments without courtesy calls, and bumped appointments — meaningfully drag down the professionalism score. The pricing dimension is the single largest risk factor for this contractor and is corroborated by enough independent reviewers across enough years to be treated as a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.

• 14 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Pricing complaints are numerous, specific, and span multiple years (2014–2025), strongly suggesting a systemic pattern of high or inconsistent pricing rather than isolated incidents. Scores from competitors cited by reviewers were consistently 50–90% lower than Patterson quotes.
• Several 5-star reviews are very short and generic (e.g., 'Very professional', 'Professional and courteous', 'Great service') with no specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, these add limited evidentiary value and were weighted conservatively.
• Scheduling and dispatch failures appear in multiple reviews across different years (2014, 2019, 2021, 2025), including no-shows, missed courtesy calls, and all-day waits — indicating a recurring operational issue beyond individual incidents.
• One review (2023) alleges the technician sent was not a licensed plumber and that the company misrepresented the availability of parts to upsell work. This is a serious allegation that could not be verified but is noted.
• One review alleges the company's website falsely implies service coverage in Walsenburg when they are based in Pueblo, which the reviewer characterizes as dishonest marketing.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2025 and 2024–2019, providing a reasonably current picture. However, several negative pricing reviews date from 2014–2017 and the pattern has continued into 2025, suggesting the issue is longstanding.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the pricing dimension is heavily penalized based on consistent, specific, and independently corroborated complaints that span nearly a decade, and prospective customers should obtain competing quotes before committing to any Patterson Plumbing & Heating estimate.

CGS Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile: a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and solid workmanship is offset by a significant cluster of serious negative reviews alleging overcharging, incomplete or ineffective repairs, unprofessional conduct, and poor communication. Professionalism is the most contested dimension, with multiple 1-star reviews citing condescending behavior, failure to follow up, and rude phone interactions, pulling the score down substantially despite many positive mentions of friendliness and responsiveness. Pricing is similarly split — several reviewers praised CGS for undercutting competitors, while multiple others explicitly described feeling ripped off or overcharged for minimal work. Project completion scores moderately, as most positive reviewers report jobs finished same-day, but at least three negative reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion or was never resolved. Experience scores slightly higher due to consistent praise for quick diagnosis and technical know-how, though two reviews describe a technician charging for work that did not fix the problem.

• Two 1-star reviews posted on the same date (2019-03-25) within minutes of each other with similar vague language and no specific job details — possible coordinated negative review attack or same individual using two accounts.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great family owned business,' 'Great service,' 'Nice local guy!') with no job-specific details, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.
• One review (2018-08-02) references 'CHS Plumbing' rather than 'CGS Plumbing' — likely the same company but noted as a minor inconsistency.
• A meaningful portion of reviews (roughly 12 of 34) are older than 3 years, with the most recent negative review dated 2024-09-12 indicating ongoing quality concerns. Recency weighting slightly favors the negative signal.
• At least 4 reviews describe situations where the problem was not resolved, the customer was charged anyway, and follow-up was ignored or hostile — this is a substantive pattern, not isolated incidents.
• One review alleges no Workers Compensation insurance, which is a potential legal and liability concern for customers.

This WW Score is based on 34 reviews spanning approximately 10 years with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable, but the strong polarization between positive and negative experiences means the score reflects a genuinely inconsistent service provider rather than a statistical artifact — prospective customers should weigh the negative reviews carefully.

This review set aggregates feedback across what appears to be multiple contractors and companies all operating under or associated with the 'ASAP Plumbing' name, which significantly complicates scoring. Positive reviews — many centered on individual plumbers named Bruce, Jerry, and Anthony — consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, driving scores upward across all dimensions. However, a substantial cluster of serious negative reviews describes abandoned work, dangerous code violations, dishonest upselling, rude behavior, and jobs left incomplete or improperly executed, pulling scores down considerably. The water heater installation failure described in two separate reviews (likely the same incident) is a particularly damaging data point for both project completion and experience. Overall, the score reflects a deeply mixed contractor profile where individual technician quality varies enormously and company-level accountability is a recurring concern.

• MULTIPLE ENTITIES WARNING: Reviews appear to reference several distinct contractors and possibly multiple separate businesses all using the 'ASAP Plumbing' name across different geographic regions (California, Kansas, Virginia, etc.). Scores should not be interpreted as reflecting a single unified business.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contained no text content (only a rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews. Their uniformly positive ratings with zero detail raise concerns about authenticity.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: Several reviews consist of only a period ('.'), 'unknown', or a single generic sentence with no specifics. These add no usable data and inflate the raw star average artificially.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2002 to 2024. A significant number of reviews predate 2020 and were given reduced weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) include a dangerous water heater installation failure and an abandoned job with no follow-up, which are weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2002) describes a boiler flue installation that was not up to code, caused carbon monoxide leakage, triggered a fire department response, and was subsequently repaired improperly. Another (2024) describes an oversized water heater installed without a drip pan in a confined space, leading to unit failure within a month. These are significant safety and competence red flags.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were started but never completed, with the company becoming unreachable afterward. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods and locations.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least two reviews describe charges of approximately $1,800 for water heater installations that resulted in immediate failure, followed by demands for an additional $580 without proper diagnosis. One review describes a $5,200 quote that a second plumber resolved for $160.
• HIDDEN FEES: One reviewer noted an undisclosed 3.5% credit card surcharge revealed only after work was completed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a guide to any single contractor is LOW because the reviews almost certainly reflect multiple distinct businesses and individual plumbers operating under similar or identical trade names across different regions — consumers should verify which specific entity and technician they are hiring before relying on this score.