Find Nearby Plumbers In Hattiesburg, Mississippi

SWAT Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with 68 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, attitude, and politeness. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns: 8 reviews document aggressive upselling, inflated charges (e.g., $2,300 for a gasket replacement, $2,000+ for modifications), and lack of transparent quotes. Project completion is problematic, with multiple reports of incomplete work, no-shows, extended delays, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow up on callbacks. The disparity between high professionalism ratings and low pricing/completion scores suggests technicians perform well on-site but systemic issues with dispatch, scheduling, pricing practices, and contract fulfillment significantly damage overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews (6+ distinct complaints) document aggressive upselling and charges 2-3x market rate. Customers report being quoted $2,300 for a gasket replacement, $2,000+ for modifications on standard water heater installations, and $1,900 for vent work. Pattern suggests systematic overcharging, particularly for warranty-covered work.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 5 reviews report incomplete work, no-shows, extended delays (3+ weeks), failure to return with correct parts, and abandonment of jobs mid-contract. One customer reported full payment taken before job completion with no follow-up communication.
• DISPATCH/SCHEDULING DYSFUNCTION: Multiple reviews cite poor scheduling (12-hour windows, 3-week waits, cancellations), no-shows, and inability to commit to specific appointment times. This appears systemic rather than isolated.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 45 reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'timely,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. Many lack substantive information about actual work performed. However, the 8 negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, suggesting the positive reviews may be inflated or incentivized. This reduces confidence in the professionalism score.
• RECENCY BIAS: 78 of 92 reviews are from 2024 (past 12 months), with heavy clustering in July-August 2024. Older reviews (2023) also contain serious complaints, suggesting issues are persistent, not recent.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints suggests either highly variable technician quality or that negative experiences are underrepresented in the review pool.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by substantial mention counts, the pricing dimension is severely limited (only 8 mentions) yet reveals a systematic pattern of overcharging that directly contradicts the company's trustworthiness. The suspected inflation of positive reviews and the stark disconnect between on-site performance and systemic failures (pricing, scheduling, completion) suggest the overall score masks serious structural problems. Customers should prioritize the detailed negative reviews over aggregate ratings and demand transparent, itemized quotes before engaging this company.

Kelly's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness across 24 mentions. Experience scores are solid (85.0) based on 12 mentions highlighting technical knowledge and problem-solving. However, pricing presents a mixed picture: while many reviews praise fair and reasonable rates, 13 mentions reveal concerns about costs being higher than expected or inconsistent quoting practices. Project completion shows moderate strength (79.0) with most jobs finished properly, but two critical failures (reversed check valve installation, improper dishwasher loop installation from 2000) and one instance of work performed without customer authorization significantly impact confidence. The dataset contains substantial duplicate reviews (23 exact duplicates across 46 total), which reduces unique data points and raises concerns about review authenticity.

• CRITICAL: 23 exact duplicate reviews detected (50% of dataset). Identical reviews appear on dates 2023-08-06, 2023-02-06, 2018-08-07, 2018-05-17, 2018-03-27, 2018-02-16, 2018-01-11, 2017-12-01, 2017-11-05, 2017-11-02, 2017-10-31, 2017-10-23, 2017-08-22, 2017-07-28, 2017-06-15, 2017-05-22, 2017-03-13, 2017-02-22, 2017-01-24, 2016-12-28, 2016-12-14. This pattern suggests potential review manipulation or system duplication errors. Confidence should be reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2017-2018 (6+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2023 and 2 from 2023 are recent. Limited current data on contractor performance.
• CRITICAL QUALITY ISSUE: 2018 review documents severe technical incompetence—check valve installed backwards, blocking all water flow. Customer had to identify the error. Plumber blamed fatigue and vacation plans.
• CRITICAL QUALITY ISSUE: 2010 review documents systemic poor workmanship from 2000 installation: dishwasher loop installed incorrectly (too short, causing persistent odor and water pooling), water pressure tank piped incorrectly and placed in attic (froze and leaked first winter), and significant quote-to-invoice discrepancy ($800 quote vs $2700 charge with post-hoc justification).
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: 2017 review reports work performed without customer authorization—came for estimate, performed work without consulting customer first.
• PUNCTUALITY ISSUE: 2017 review notes Curtis was late both times scheduled, though customer acknowledged this may have been beyond his control.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 3 reviews contain no text (2017-02-28, 2017-04-11, 2017-01-16), providing no usable data despite 5-star ratings.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews mention pricing concerns—some praise 'very reasonable' rates, others note costs 'a little high' or 'surprised at overall cost.' One review documents a $1900 quote discrepancy (competitor quoted $1500 for same job Kelly's completed in 30 minutes).

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the MODERATE overall confidence reflects the volume of data, the dataset is severely compromised by 50% duplicate reviews, reviews older than 6 years, and two documented instances of significant technical failures and poor workmanship. The score of 81.2 is artificially inflated by the high volume of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail. Recent performance data is insufficient (only 2 reviews from 2023), and the historical record includes serious quality and integrity concerns that warrant skepticism about current reliability.

Pierce Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews spanning many years, with recurring praise for punctuality, professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing. Multiple reviewers specifically noted technicians arriving on time, communicating clearly, cleaning up after themselves, and going beyond the scope of work to educate customers. However, scores are meaningfully pulled down by one highly detailed and credible 1-star review alleging abandoned work, theft of equipment, fraudulent survey completion, and a resulting lawsuit — a serious flag that cannot be dismissed. A secondary concern is the large volume of 'unknown' or near-blank reviews (approximately 30 out of 75), which provide ratings but no usable textual evidence, reducing the reliability of any aggregate signal. The most recent substantive reviews (2022) include both a strong positive and the severe negative, leaving the current performance picture genuinely mixed.

• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2022-09-13) alleges abandoned work, theft of customer's AC unit, fraudulent completion of a manufacturer satisfaction survey, and a filed lawsuit with a cited case number. The specificity and verifiability of this claim (case number provided) lend it significant credibility and it cannot be treated as an outlier without investigation.
• DATA QUALITY WARNING: Approximately 30 of 75 reviews contain only 'unknown', 'ai', or a single punctuation mark as review text. These reviews provide star ratings but zero usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of substantive reviews are from 2011–2015, making them 8–12+ years old. Only 2 reviews with meaningful text are from the past 3 years (2020 and 2022). Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from older reviews.
• SCHEDULING/RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: At least 3 separate reviews mention issues with not being called back, not showing up as promised, or after-hours bait-and-switch on pricing. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One 3-star review (2013-10-31) describes a technician installing a shower head without reading manufacturer instructions, rendering it non-functional, and making a rude comment to the customer — suggesting inconsistency in technician quality.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the volume of reviews is sufficient and dimension mentions are reasonably high, the score is significantly undermined by a credible and detailed fraud/abandonment allegation, a large proportion of content-free reviews, and the age of most substantive positive feedback — prospective customers should independently verify current performance before hiring.

Every single review is a 1-star complaint, painting a deeply negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of repeated no-shows, failure to disclose damage caused during service, and one reviewer alleging a technician (named Jerome) solicited cash from an elderly woman in what appears to be a predatory transaction. Pricing is flagged as exploitative in multiple reviews, with charges described as ridiculously overpriced and one instance of alleged cash solicitation on top of a service fee. Project completion is critically low, as reviewers describe work that was never finished, a sewer line that went unfound despite two days of labor, and a cracked toilet left leaking without disclosure or remedy. Workmanship and experience concerns are evident in the failure to locate an accessible sewer line and the cracking of a toilet during a routine unclog, suggesting serious skill deficiencies.

• ALL 5 REVIEWS ARE 1-STAR: This is a uniformly negative dataset with no positive reviews to balance the score. The WW Score reflects genuine documented complaints, not a skewed sample.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD / PREDATORY BEHAVIOR: One review explicitly alleges a technician solicited $200 cash from an 80-year-old woman after the problem had already resolved itself. This is a serious ethical and potentially legal concern.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE DENIAL: One reviewer reports the company cracked a toilet and then refused to return to fix it without additional charges, suggesting a pattern of avoiding accountability for damage caused.
• DECEPTIVE LABOR BILLING ALLEGED: One reviewer claims the technician appeared to deliberately avoid finding a sewer line that was visibly accessible, resulting in two days of billed labor with no result.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2020 to 2023. The most recent review (April 2023) is still over 12 months old relative to a typical analysis window. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, which limits current reliability.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews were provided. While all are negative and consistent in tone, a larger dataset would increase confidence in the overall score.

This score is based on a small but internally consistent set of 5 negative reviews spanning multiple dimensions; while the sample size limits statistical confidence, the severity and specificity of the complaints across professionalism, pricing, completion, and workmanship make the low WW Score credible and should be treated as a serious warning to prospective customers.

This contractor's review record is overwhelmingly negative across nearly every dimension. Four of five reviews describe serious project abandonment, unreturned calls, and work left in dangerous or incomplete states — including leaking roofs, open trenches, unpainted surfaces, and structural omissions. Professionalism is critically low, with one review explicitly documenting the use of profanity and racial slurs during follow-up calls, and multiple reviews describing the contractor going completely silent after payment. Project completion is the most damning dimension: across four detailed negative reviews, jobs were left unfinished, scheduled return visits were missed repeatedly, and in at least two cases the contractor flatly refused to return. The sole positive review (2012) describes a responsive furnace repair, which is the only evidence of competent, timely work in the entire dataset.

• Four of five reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern strongly suggests genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The one positive review (5 stars, 2012) is over 12 years old and describes a different type of work (furnace repair) compared to the construction/roofing complaints. It should be weighted minimally.
• All four negative reviews describe a consistent pattern: payment accepted upfront, work left incomplete or defective, and contractor becoming unreachable afterward — this is a serious red flag for potential fraud or chronic negligence.
• Review dates span 2009 to 2022, indicating a long and consistent pattern of poor performance rather than isolated incidents.
• No reviews fall within the past 12 months; the most recent negative review is from August 2022. Recency weighting reduces confidence in current operational status but does not mitigate the severity of the documented pattern.
• Contractor allegedly used profanity and made racial remarks to a customer during follow-up calls (2014 review) — this is an extreme professionalism violation.

This WW Score is based on 5 reviews with a strong, consistent, and highly detailed pattern of failure across all dimensions; the score of approximately 11 should be treated as a reliable signal of serious risk, and the contractor is not recommended for hire.

This review dataset cannot be scored using the WW Score methodology. The overwhelming majority of reviews (approximately 85%) are for a UPS Store location, not a plumber or contractor. Only approximately 15 reviews pertain to Discount Rooter, a plumbing company. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate contractor/plumber performance across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. The UPS Store reviews discuss retail shipping services, employee friendliness, and package handling—dimensions that do not map to the four WW Score dimensions. Additionally, the plumbing reviews that are present lack sufficient structured data across all four dimensions to generate a reliable composite score.

• CRITICAL: Dataset contamination — approximately 85% of reviews are for UPS Store (retail shipping services), not a plumbing contractor. This is not the correct business type for WW Score evaluation.
• Only ~15 reviews are for Discount Rooter (plumbing company). This is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• The UPS Store reviews discuss customer service, employee attitudes, and package handling—none of which align with the four WW Score dimensions (professionalism in plumbing context, pricing transparency, project completion, technical experience).
• Mixed business entities in single dataset makes scoring impossible. UPS Store and Discount Rooter are entirely different service categories.
• Recommendation: Resubmit with reviews exclusively for a single plumbing/contractor business.

This dataset cannot produce a valid WW Score. The reviews are primarily for a UPS Store retail location, not a plumbing contractor, making dimensional scoring impossible and unreliable.