Find Nearby Plumbers In Concord, New Hampshire

Adam Edwards demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of timely communication, responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous demeanor across all five reviews. Project completion is solid, with multiple reviews confirming jobs were finished properly and follow-up service was provided. Technical expertise is evident through diagnostic skill and problem-solving ability mentioned in four reviews. Pricing feedback is limited to two mentions but both are positive. The small sample size (5 reviews) and age of reviews (oldest from 2019, most from 2021-2023) warrant moderate overall confidence despite strong individual dimension scores.

• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional recent reviews for higher confidence
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback; while not necessarily fake, this perfect rating distribution is atypical and should be monitored
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (3 of 5 from 2021-2022); only 2 reviews from 2023; recent performance data is limited
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data to make strong claims about value proposition

This WW Score of 89.3 should be treated with moderate confidence due to the small sample size and age of most reviews; the score reflects strong performance on available evidence but would benefit from additional recent customer feedback to validate current service quality.

Mike Reid earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple reviewers praising his punctuality, communication, thoroughness, and technical knowledge across plumbing, HVAC, and heating work. Project completion scores are high — jobs are consistently described as finished on time, cleanly, and with follow-through even during personal time off. Experience scores are similarly strong, with reviewers noting his ability to handle complicated installs and repairs while explaining the process clearly. Pricing is the weakest dimension: one reviewer explicitly called the cost 'extremely high' for minor work, and while others describe pricing as fair or reasonable, the mixed signals and limited mentions warrant a conservative score. Professionalism is slightly penalized by one 1-star review citing two unanswered calls and no callback, which is a meaningful responsiveness failure even if isolated.

• One review (2020-09-06) reports two unanswered calls and no callback — a direct responsiveness failure that meaningfully impacts the professionalism score.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years, with the majority dating from 2015–2018. Only two reviews are from 2019–2020. Recency is low and the contractor's current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating, and include specific job descriptions and one negative experience, which adds authenticity.
• Small total review count (12) limits statistical reliability despite HIGH confidence labels on individual dimensions.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability given consistent detail across reviews, but should be treated with caution due to the age of most reviews — the most recent substantive positive review is from mid-2020 and the bulk of data is from 2015–2018, meaning current performance may differ significantly.

Bow Plumbing and Heating generally earns strong marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers across different years praising courteous staff, pre-arrival calls, and knowledgeable technicians. Experience and workmanship are consistently described as solid, with no reviewer disputing the quality of the actual work performed. Project completion scores are positive but tempered by one invoice dispute (later resolved) and one report of the company not accepting new customers. Pricing is the clearest weak point: one detailed review explicitly describes lump-sum quotes with no parts-and-labor breakdown, a refusal to itemize, and a final price nearly double a competitor's — this meaningfully drags the pricing dimension down. The overall score reflects a competent and professional operation with a notable transparency concern around pricing.

• RECENCY WARNING: Several reviews are significantly dated — two reviews are from 2006 and 2016, one from 2018, and one from 2021. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The older reviews may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or pricing policies.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states they were refused a parts-and-labor breakdown and describes the quote as nearly double what a competitor charged for the same job. This is a substantive, specific complaint — not a vague grievance — and warrants caution.
• AVAILABILITY CONCERN: One 2024 reviewer reports being told the company is not accepting new customers. This may indicate capacity constraints and is relevant to prospective clients.
• INVOICE DISPUTE: One 2024 reviewer initially had a billing dispute before it was resolved. While the outcome was positive, the dispute itself is noted.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews span nearly 20 years. This is a very thin dataset and limits the reliability of any dimension score. Scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability at best — the dataset is very small (7 reviews over nearly two decades), recency is poor, and the pricing dimension is based on conflicting signals that include one specific and credible complaint about non-transparent quoting practices.

Derek's plumbing business shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While technical skill and experience are consistently praised (85/100), serious concerns emerge around professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Recent reviews (2022-2024) reveal critical failures: non-responsiveness to callbacks, unreasonable billing practices, and incomplete work spanning months. Older positive reviews (2017-2019) suggest past reliability, but the pattern of recent complaints indicates deteriorating service quality. The business demonstrates competence but lacks accountability and follow-through on commitments.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are recent (2022-2024) while positive reviews are older (2017-2019), suggesting service quality decline over time.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews explicitly mention non-responsiveness to repair requests and callbacks—critical professionalism failure.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Two separate reviews cite billing issues (unexpected $99 charge despite verbal agreement; 'unreasonable bills'), indicating potential transparency or honesty problems.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One review documents 2+ months of unfinished work (heat vents, thermostat installation) with no follow-up—severe project completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: One detailed review describes suboptimal installation choices (exposed piping, appliance fit issues) suggesting corners cut for convenience rather than quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews limits statistical reliability; confidence is moderate rather than high.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and stark polarization between older positive and recent negative reviews; the WW Score of 62.8 reflects genuine service quality concerns documented in recent feedback, but the MODERATE confidence reflects limited mention counts and the possibility that recent reviews may not represent current operations if issues have been addressed.

AGS Services presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised specific technicians — particularly Jason — for professionalism, responsiveness, and clear communication, and several reviews noted fair pricing and quality workmanship on HVAC and plumbing installations. However, serious negative reviews significantly drag down every dimension: one highly detailed 1-star review (posted twice) catalogues multiple installation failures including fire hazards, incorrect equipment, and poor workmanship on a full home build-out, while other negative reviews cite no-shows, unanswered calls, failure to stand behind work, and charging customers to fix their own mistakes. Project completion is the most penalized dimension given explicit complaints about abandoned follow-through, water leaks, and work that required correction. The score reflects a contractor with capable individual technicians but inconsistent quality control and accountability at the organizational level.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed 1-star review from 2018 describing seven installation failures appears twice with nearly identical text and different dates (2018-12-01 and 2018-11-19). This may indicate a copy-paste submission by the same reviewer or a platform duplication. It was counted once for scoring purposes.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only ratings — one 5-star and one 1-star) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from 2024 and 2023, but the majority of reviews span 2012–2022. The 2024 reviews are positive, but the sample is too small to confirm a trend of improvement. Older negative reviews (2018 and earlier) describe systemic issues that may or may not still apply.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Several positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Very knowledgeable and everyone I know in town raves about them') with no specific details, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews. However, enough detailed positive reviews exist to avoid a fake review flag.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN NOTED: One detailed review describes a near-fire incident due to improper boiler venting, installation of outdated equipment, and multiple code-level failures. While this review is from 2018, it is specific and credible and was weighted accordingly in the experience and project completion scores.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews with usable data spanning 2012–2024 and carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for confidence, but the wide date range, one duplicate review, and stark polarization between detailed praise and detailed criticism introduce meaningful uncertainty about the contractor's current and consistent performance level.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making reliable scoring very difficult. The single positive review (2023) praises responsiveness, helpfulness, and efficiency, but it is heavily outweighed by two negative reviews describing overcharging on basic repairs and seriously shoddy workmanship that required multiple costly corrections by subsequent plumbers. The project completion dimension is particularly concerning, as one reviewer describes three separate corrective jobs needed after a bathroom re-plumb, with ceiling and wall cuts required to fix the original work. Pricing is flagged as a problem area based on a $165 charge for a 5-minute visit. Overall, the negative reviews carry significant weight due to their specificity and severity, despite their age.

• VERY LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered reliable and should be treated as indicative only.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of the three reviews are from 2014 and 2015, making them 9–10+ years old. Only one review is recent (2023). Score may not reflect current performance.
• SEVERE WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: One reviewer explicitly describes repeated corrective work by other plumbers following a bathroom re-plumb, indicating potentially serious quality issues on at least one job.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly describes being overcharged, including a $165 fee for a 5-minute visit, suggesting possible lack of pricing transparency.
• SPLIT SIGNAL: The 2023 review is strongly positive while both older reviews are strongly negative — it is unclear whether quality has genuinely improved or whether the sample is too small to draw conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning nearly 10 years and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references and recent reviews before making a hiring decision.