Find Nearby Plumbers In Manchester, New Hampshire

O'Neil's receives generally positive feedback on professionalism, with reviewers describing the team as nice, efficient, and communicative across multiple reviews. Project completion and workmanship are consistently praised, with jobs described as completed excellently and expertly. However, pricing is a significant concern: one reviewer received a quote of $1,125 for a relatively minor bathroom job and found a competitor willing to do it for $320, which is a serious red flag for value. The positive pricing mention from 2021 partially offsets this, but the stark pricing discrepancy pulls the pricing dimension down considerably. With only 4 total reviews and two of the positive reviews dating back to 2021, the overall score should be treated with caution.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is very small and scores carry limited reliability.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2021, making them over 3 years old. Recency weighting reduces their reliability for assessing current performance.
• Significant pricing concern: one reviewer was quoted $1,125 for a sink/medicine cabinet swap and found a competitor at $320 — a 3.5x price difference. This suggests possible inconsistent or inflated quoting practices.
• Two of the positive reviews (2021) are brief and lack specific detail, which slightly raises generic praise concerns, though they do reference specific appliance jobs which adds some credibility.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with limited recency, making it LOW confidence overall — the score should not be treated as a reliable indicator of consistent performance without a larger and more recent review sample.

Mr. Rooter receives consistently strong marks for individual technician professionalism, friendliness, and responsiveness — many reviewers highlight specific plumbers by name and praise their attitude, communication, and technical competence. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe costs as excessive, opaque, or deceptive, with several noting they were quoted two to four times what competitors charged for identical work. Project completion is generally solid — most jobs are finished and technicians follow through — but there are notable failures including a no-show, a pipe that broke immediately after repair with no emergency response, an unresolved leak after three wall holes were cut, and a drain that was not warrantied even 24 hours after service. Experience scores are moderately positive, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though a few incidents of poor workmanship and one technician breaking a pipe during a consultation drag the score down.

• 13 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• 3 reviews are labeled 'unknown' with no content beyond a 5-star rating (2016 dates). These were excluded entirely.
• A significant portion of blank or content-free 5-star reviews raises mild concern about review authenticity or platform import artifacts, though the volume of detailed reviews is sufficient to anchor the score.
• Pricing complaints span from 2014 through 2025, indicating a persistent and systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. Multiple reviewers independently describe being quoted 2x–4x competitor prices, being charged without upfront disclosure, and feeling deceived by the service-fee-then-waive model.
• One review (2024-08-27) explicitly states the company does not warranty drain cleaning work even for 24 hours and came without power equipment — a serious workmanship and transparency concern.
• One review (2018-03-14) describes a technician breaking a pipe and then charging the customer for the repair — a significant integrity flag.
• One review (2015-10-20) describes three holes cut in walls, no leak found, no heat, and no resolution for $322 — an incomplete project flag.
• One review (2018-02-05) and one review (2024-07-09) describe confirmed no-shows with no proactive communication — a reliability flag.
• One review (2016-12-19) describes a repaired pipe failing within one hour of technician departure with no emergency response available despite a family of 9 — a serious project completion and customer service failure.
• Reviews span from 2014 to 2025. Older reviews (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The majority of recent 2024–2025 reviews trend more positively for professionalism and completion, but pricing complaints remain consistent across all time periods.

This WW Score is based on 65 reviews with substantive content across a large and diverse dataset spanning 11 years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, though the persistent and well-documented pricing concerns are a reliable signal that should be taken seriously by any prospective customer.

Al Terry Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Professionalism scores moderately well in recent reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, politeness, and communication from named technicians — but this is significantly offset by older reviews citing no-shows, missed appointments, ignored callbacks, and dismissive service managers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'double competitors,' or deceptive (quotes that tripled between phone and written estimate), and at least two reviewers felt vulnerable customers were taken advantage of — this drags the pricing score down substantially. Project completion is inconsistent: while many jobs are described as completed well, there are documented cases of recurring leaks after repairs, misdiagnoses that cost customers hundreds with no resolution, and a warranty dispute where the company refused to cover its own failed work. Experience scores moderately, with many recent reviews praising knowledgeable technicians, but older reviews describe technicians who could not diagnose problems correctly and caused property damage. The overall WW Score reflects a company with genuine strengths in day-to-day service delivery but serious, recurring concerns around pricing transparency and accountability.

• 6 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent star rating without substantive evidence.
• Several recent 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service Great Technician', 'Highly recommend Al Terry Plumbing') with no specific details. These may reflect real but low-information experiences; they were counted toward totals but given minimal weight in scoring.
• Pricing complaints span from 2014 through 2024, suggesting a persistent and systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. At least 6 separate reviewers independently describe pricing as excessive, deceptive, or exploitative.
• One review (rated 1-star, dated 2025-05-26) praises the technicians by name and describes the work positively — the 1-star rating appears to be a data entry error or misclick. This review was scored as positive for professionalism and experience but flagged as anomalous.
• A 2-star review (2025-03-11) documents a recurring leak after a $1,250 repair, with the company refusing warranty coverage and charging $300+ to fix their own failed work. This is a significant project completion and pricing red flag from within the past 12 months.
• A 1-star review (2022-04-26) describes a 2-week delay on an urgent water heater replacement, forced cosmetic repairs under duress, and a 4-month wait for a partial refund — indicating serious project management and customer service failures.
• A 1-star review (2019-02-05) describes a technician who took a water sample before Thanksgiving 2018 and never followed up with results or a callback, even after the customer called to complain. This reflects a complete breakdown in follow-through.
• A 1-star review (2015-02-09) describes a misdiagnosis costing $620 in unnecessary work, followed by the company offering multiple additional options at $500+ each with no certainty any would work. The actual fix cost $50 from another plumber.
• A 1-star review (2015-02-02) describes a phone quote of $500 that became $800 in person and $1,668 in the written estimate, with no response to a request for explanation — a serious pricing transparency and trust concern.
• Most negative reviews are from 2014–2022, while most positive reviews are from 2025. This recency gap may indicate genuine improvement, but the 2025 negative review about warranty refusal suggests some systemic issues persist.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months) and were given higher weight. Negative reviews skew older but include at least two from 2022–2025, preventing full dismissal of concerns.

This WW Score is based on 65 reviews spanning 2012–2025 with sufficient volume for HIGH overall confidence, but readers should weigh the persistent and multi-year pricing complaints heavily, as they represent an independently corroborated pattern rather than isolated dissatisfaction.

Paul the Plumber operates across what appears to be multiple similarly-named businesses or franchises, generating a very large and mixed review pool spanning roughly 2004 to 2025. Professionalism scores moderately well — the majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and clean workmanship — but is significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed callbacks, rescheduling without notice, and in some cases rude office staff. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an exceptionally high volume of detailed negative reviews describe charges that are 3x to 10x market rate for simple jobs, refusal to provide itemized bills, flat-rate pricing that is not disclosed upfront, and a documented pattern of targeting elderly and vulnerable customers with inflated quotes. Project completion is generally positive for jobs that are actually completed, with many reviewers noting efficient and thorough work, but is undermined by multiple accounts of abandoned estimates, unresolved callbacks, and in some cases work that had to be redone by other plumbers. Experience scores reasonably well among positive reviewers who describe skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but is offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and technicians who had to call supervisors mid-job.

• PRICING PREDATION PATTERN: An unusually high volume of detailed, specific negative reviews — spanning multiple years and geographic locations — describe charges of $700–$5,500 for jobs that competitors completed for $100–$800. This is not isolated; it is a systemic pattern across dozens of independent reviewers.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly state the company exploited elderly or vulnerable customers (80+ year olds, widows, new homeowners) with inflated quotes and refusal to provide itemized bills. This is a serious ethical flag.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2021-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2024-06-09, and 2025-05-10 share identical or near-identical dates with no specific job details, suggesting possible review solicitation campaigns or batch submissions. Many of these are blank (no text, only a 5-star rating) and should be treated as low-signal.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30–40 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple named technicians, multiple geographic locations (NH, NE, IL, TX, MA, CO, MN), and multiple business names (Paul the Plumber, Paul's Way Home Services, Paul's Way). It is likely these reviews aggregate multiple similarly-named businesses, which reduces the reliability of any single composite score.
• NO-SHOW AND CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe Paul or his team scheduling appointments and failing to appear or return calls, sometimes causing customers to take time off work unnecessarily. This is a recurring professionalism failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and carry full weight. Reviews from 2009–2018 are present but given reduced interpretive weight in narrative assessment. The pricing complaints are consistent across all time periods.
• ITEMIZED BILLING REFUSAL: Multiple reviewers report being denied itemized bills when requested, which is a transparency red flag and consistent with the pricing concerns.

This WW Score of 68.2 is based on a very large review pool and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but should be interpreted cautiously due to likely multi-entity aggregation, a documented pattern of price gouging complaints, suspected review solicitation inflating the 5-star count, and serious ethical concerns around billing practices — prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain itemized quotes in writing before authorizing any work.

Sanford Temperature Control demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and problem-solving ability. However, the company is severely hampered by aggressive and non-transparent pricing practices that appear across multiple reviews, with customers reporting markups of 300-400% on parts and flat-rate pricing that feels exploitative. Project completion shows mixed results, with some emergency responses handled excellently but other jobs experiencing significant delays, rescheduling issues, and incomplete follow-through. The pricing concerns are substantial enough to significantly depress the overall score despite strong technical performance.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (at least 8) explicitly cite excessive pricing, markup concerns, and flat-rate pricing as predatory. This is not isolated complaint but systemic pattern. Examples: $507.49 for $26.42 pipe (1,820% markup), $700 for 15-minute valve replacement, $1,200 for simple pipe seal/recharge, $900 for gas valve vs. $1,000 for full water heater replacement elsewhere.
• TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Several reviews mention difficulty obtaining written quotes, pricing only revealed when technician is on-site, and refusal to provide pricing over phone. This creates information asymmetry favoring the company.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite rescheduling without proper notification (2018-12-04), 13-day delay for water heater repair (2016-11-23), and one instance of refusing to complete quoted work after contract signed (2018-05-20).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative pricing reviews are from 2016-2019 (older), but recent reviews (2024) also contain pricing complaints, suggesting pattern persists. Most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly positive, which may indicate either improved service or selection bias in who leaves recent reviews.
• SELECTIVE SERVICE: One review (2016-07-13) indicates company refuses small plumbing jobs despite membership, suggesting business model mismatch with certain customer needs.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 40 reviews with strong data across all dimensions. The score accurately reflects a company with excellent technical professionalism and expertise but severely compromised by systematic pricing practices that customers perceive as exploitative and non-transparent. The HIGH overall confidence is warranted given the volume and consistency of evidence, particularly the pricing pattern which appears across 13 independent reviews spanning multiple years.

3 Brothers Mechanical presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a recurring and well-documented pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return calls or messages — this complaint appears across multiple reviews spanning 2016 through 2024, suggesting it is a persistent structural problem rather than isolated incidents. When technicians do show up, many reviewers describe them as courteous, friendly, and professional in demeanor, which prevents the professionalism score from falling further. Pricing receives a below-average score due to at least two explicit complaints about unexpected or unjustified charges, though several other reviewers praised fair and reasonable pricing, creating a split signal. Project completion is the weakest dimension: a substantial number of reviews describe jobs that were delayed, required multiple return visits, or were left in a non-functional state for extended periods — most notably the split AC system that failed across two full seasons. Experience scores moderately well, as many reviewers who received completed work praised the technical knowledge and quality of workmanship, but this is offset by at least two reviews describing clear diagnostic failures and inability to resolve recurring technical issues.

• 8 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These blank reviews provide zero usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent star rating of this contractor.
• 3 reviews contain only 'unknown' as text and were excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews (dated 2019-06-11 and 2019-05-21) appear to be near-identical duplicates: 'I found 3 Brothers on Thumbtack and I'm glad I did...' with nearly word-for-word identical content. One may be a duplicate submission or a fake review. Both were counted but treated as a single data point for scoring purposes.
• The pattern of all blank and 'unknown' reviews being 5-star ratings is a potential fake review signal and inflates the raw star average artificially.
• No-show and non-responsiveness complaints span from 2016 through 2024, indicating this is a chronic operational issue, not an anomaly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review with substantive content (2024-06-09) has no text. The most recent negative review with detail is from 2023, confirming the no-show problem persists to recent times. The majority of positive detailed reviews are from 2017–2021, meaning recent performance data skews negative.

This WW Score is based on a substantial number of reviews with usable content and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of multiple blank 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate raw ratings, a confirmed duplicate review, and a well-documented multi-year pattern of scheduling failures that represents a serious and unresolved operational risk for prospective customers.