Find Nearby Plumbers In New Brunswick, New Jersey

Dunigan Plumbing presents a deeply split picture across its reviews. Long-term customers consistently praise professionalism, courteous staff, clean workmanship, and fair pricing — with several reviewers noting decades of loyalty. However, three separate 1-star reviews (and one 2-star) describe serious failures in responsiveness and communication: no-shows, unreturned calls, and rude office staff, which significantly drag down the professionalism score. Pricing feedback is uniformly positive among those who mentioned it, and technical workmanship is generally well-regarded by customers whose jobs were completed. The recency pattern is concerning — the three most damaging reviews cluster in 2018, while the strongest positive reviews are from 2013–2016, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2018–2020) include both a strong positive (2020) and multiple serious negatives (2018). The bulk of glowing reviews are from 2013–2016, meaning the positive score may reflect a historical reputation that has since deteriorated.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE PATTERN: Three independent reviewers (2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-08) all describe the same failure mode — no callback, no follow-through, and in one case rude office staff. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• SPLIT CUSTOMER BASE: Reviews appear to come from two distinct groups — long-term repeat customers who are highly satisfied, and new or first-time callers who experienced poor responsiveness. This bifurcation suggests the company may prioritize existing clients over new inquiries.
• ONE NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE NOTE: The 2017 review (rating 2.0) describes a technician wandering through the home and opening closets without communication — a professionalism concern related to on-site behavior rather than scheduling.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: Language and detail levels vary naturally across reviews. No suspicious patterns of identical phrasing or generic praise detected. Reviews appear authentic.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low (11 total), the data spans nearly a decade with meaningful quality variation over time, and the strong positive history is partially offset by a credible cluster of recent service failures that cannot be dismissed.

Green Leaf Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Two recent positive reviews (2023, 2018) praise professionalism, fair pricing, and skilled problem-solving, with one highlighting creative technical solutions. However, two older negative reviews (2019, 2016) document serious failures in project completion and communication—incomplete work, unannounced visits, and failure to respond to customer contact. The stark contrast between positive and negative experiences, combined with documented project abandonment in multiple reviews, substantially lowers the overall score despite some evidence of competent workmanship.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews document incomplete project work and failure to follow up despite customer contact attempts (2019, 2016 reviews). This is a pattern of project abandonment.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews are positive (2023, 2018), but older reviews (2019, 2016) show serious service failures. This may indicate either past problems that have been resolved or inconsistent service quality.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 2019 review explicitly states contractor failed to answer calls, texts, or voicemails despite customer attempts to contact. This is a professionalism red flag.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is limited by small sample size.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and significant polarization between positive and negative experiences. The documented project completion failures in multiple reviews are concerning and warrant verification before hiring.

Joe and Sewer Genie receive genuinely mixed feedback across all dimensions. Professionalism is bolstered by multiple mentions of prompt response, same-day service, and courteous demeanor, but is significantly dragged down by one detailed account of high-pressure sales tactics and a cash-only policy that left a customer feeling deceived. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while two reviewers praised fair or best-in-market pricing, one reviewer documented a part marked up from $60 to $385 with no transparency, which is a serious red flag that cannot be ignored. Project completion is middling — most jobs were finished on the day, but one reviewer noted a leaking discharge pipe within hours of a sump pump installation that was not promptly rectified, raising concerns about follow-through quality. Experience scores moderately well given multiple mentions of knowledgeability and effective problem-solving, but the installation defect in the sump pump job tempers confidence in consistent workmanship.

• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer documented a part (ignitor) billed at $385 that was independently priced at $60 — a markup of over 500%. The contractor's response was dismissive and no meaningful refund was offered. This is a significant integrity flag.
• CASH-ONLY POLICY: The same review notes the contractor accepted cash only, which reduces consumer protection and transparency.
• INSTALLATION DEFECT: The sump pump installation (July 2022) resulted in a leaking discharge pipe within hours. The contractor acknowledged the issue but did not follow through promptly, and the customer had to perform a temporary fix themselves.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review is from the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2022). The majority of reviews span 2010–2021, with the most detailed negative reviews being among the older entries. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 7 reviews total, individual negative experiences carry disproportionate weight. Scores should be treated with caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and specificity. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small review pool of 7 and the wide date range spanning over a decade, but the presence of detailed, specific reviews — both positive and negative — means the scored dimensions reflect real documented experiences rather than assumptions.

Alexander Plumbing & HVAC shows a genuinely mixed picture across only three reviews. The standout positive is the owner Ken's exceptional response to an elderly couple in need — demonstrating strong ethics, responsiveness, and community character — and a second review praises a quick, efficient, and friendly plumber. However, the third review is a serious negative data point: a technician damaged a water heater during diagnostics without disclosing it, follow-through completely broke down, and the family was left without hot water for an extended period with no resolution or refund. Project completion and experience scores are pulled down significantly by this failure, which involved both a technical error and an abandonment of the customer. Pricing scores a modest positive due to the no-charge service for the elderly couple, offset by the negative reviewer paying for multiple failed service trips with no remedy.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• The negative review (1-star, 2020) describes a serious pattern: undisclosed damage caused by technician, repeated failed repairs, and complete cessation of communication — this is a significant red flag for both competence and accountability.
• The two positive reviews are warm but relatively brief and lack deep technical detail, limiting confidence in experience and project completion scores.
• Review dates span 2020–2023; the most recent review is from March 2023, meaning all reviews are now over 12 months old as of 2024–2025. No recent data is available to confirm current service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning multiple years and should not be considered a reliable indicator of consistent service quality — prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Rich's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: multiple reviews praise prompt response times and courteous technicians, while a nearly equal number describe no-shows, unreturned calls, rude office staff, and unprofessional managers. Project completion is a significant concern, with several reviews explicitly describing abandoned work, unresolved issues requiring callbacks, and jobs left incomplete — including a hole left in a chimney and a broken gas valve the company refused to repair. Pricing drew notable negative feedback, including refusal to honor advertised coupons, unexpected charges for estimates advertised as free, and double-billing for warranty work. On the positive side, a subset of reviews — particularly older long-term customers — describe skilled, knowledgeable technicians who resolved complex issues efficiently, but negative workmanship reviews citing sloppy work and misdiagnosis temper the experience score considerably.

• 3 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating) and cannot contribute usable data to any dimension.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Wonderful, well experienced service. Highly recommended.', 'Outstanding Service.', 'Professional and was on time! Highly recommend this company.') with no specific details — these may be low-effort or potentially inflated reviews.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years (many from 2010–2017), which reduces their reliability for assessing current service quality. Only 6 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025).
• Recency concern: The two most recent reviews (March 2025) are split — one 5-star with minimal detail and one detailed 1-star describing a failure to follow through on a service request, suggesting ongoing reliability issues.
• Pattern of repeated no-show and unreturned-call complaints spans multiple years (2010, 2013, 2021, 2025), suggesting a systemic responsiveness problem rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 30 reviews with usable data spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of mention volume, but the score's reliability for predicting current performance is moderated by the age of many reviews and a persistent pattern of negative responsiveness complaints that appears across multiple years including recent ones.

Guaranteed Service shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between positive emergency service experiences and severely problematic installation/project work. While some customers praise punctuality and responsiveness (particularly for service calls), major issues emerge around installation quality, contract fulfillment, and follow-through on promised work. The company failed to deliver contracted equipment specifications, installed incomplete systems with safety concerns, and demonstrated poor communication and accountability when problems arose. Pricing transparency is questionable, with hidden charges and broken promises about included services. The most recent and detailed reviews (2021-2022) reveal serious installation defects and unresponsive management.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document breach of contract, installation of substitute equipment without customer consent, and incomplete/unsafe installations (2021-2022 reviews)
• CRITICAL: Owner/manager (Helmi Ben Flah) documented as unresponsive to customer complaints and service requests over extended periods (11+ months in one case)
• PATTERN: Dishonest sales practices - promises made verbally not honored in writing; hidden charges for permits; misrepresentation of what is included in estimates
• PATTERN: Installation quality issues documented by independent third-party HVAC contractor as 'sloppy, incomplete and unsafe'
• PATTERN: Condensate line not checked during installation causing system failure from day one; drip pan promised but not installed with false justification
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2021-2022 (recent); positive reviews are older (2018-2020) or lack specificity about installation work
• INCONSISTENCY: Company performs well on emergency service calls but fails on major installations and project completion
• RED FLAG: Pressure to make final payment before required state inspections completed; failure to inform customer of NJ State Law requirements

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to the stark polarization between positive service-call experiences and severely documented installation failures. The recent, detailed negative reviews from 2021-2022 with third-party verification of defects carry more weight than older positive reviews. The company appears competent at emergency repairs but unreliable for major installations, contract fulfillment, and customer accountability.