Find Nearby Plumbers In New Brunswick, New Jersey

Quick Fix Plumbing earns strong marks across most dimensions, with the majority of recent reviews (2024) describing David and his crew as professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. Pricing is a notable strength, with one reviewer citing bids $600–$2,000 lower than competitors and several others calling rates reasonable or fair. However, three negative reviews — spanning 2015, 2018, and 2022 — raise meaningful concerns about project completion and follow-through, including an incomplete job covered with a dishonest explanation, a water heater install that caused downstream damage due to improper bleeding, and a billing dispute over a visit that added no value. These incidents pull down the project completion and professionalism scores from what would otherwise be near-perfect ratings. The recency of the positive reviews (mostly 2024) is encouraging, but the pattern of negative reviews suggests historical quality control issues that should not be ignored.

• One review ('Great! 👍*****') contains no substantive detail and reads as a filler review — it was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• Three negative reviews (1-star in 2015, 1-star in 2018, 2-star in 2022) describe serious issues: incomplete work, dishonesty, failure to return calls, improper installation causing equipment damage, and a billing dispute — these are significant red flags for project completion and professionalism.
• The 2015 negative review describes Quick Fix failing to return calls, texts, and emails after a faulty water heater installation — a pattern of abandonment after a mistake.
• The 2018 negative review explicitly accuses a technician of lying about a work order and leaving two spigot repairs in poor or incomplete condition.
• Most negative reviews are older (2015–2022), while 2024 reviews are overwhelmingly positive — this may reflect genuine improvement, staff changes, or a shift in reviewer base. Recency weighting was applied in scoring.
• Several 2024 reviews share similar generic praise language ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'would use again') with limited specifics. While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution. No strong fake review pattern detected, but confidence is noted.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews with strong recency weighting applied; the score is reasonably reliable for current performance but should be interpreted with caution given documented historical failures in project completion and professional conduct.

First Choice demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism across most service interactions, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, politeness, and thoroughness. Project completion is reliable with good follow-through on callbacks and warranty honors. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about markups substantially exceeding market rates—particularly on parts and service calls. While many customers accept premium pricing as justified by quality, a substantial minority report feeling overcharged or misled on estimates. The company's strength in experience and professionalism is substantially offset by pricing concerns that create customer friction and erode trust.

• PRICING PATTERN: 32 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent complaint pattern. Multiple reviews cite markups of 200-400% on parts (e.g., $11 capacitor charged at $282, $350 part charged at $1,300). This is not isolated—it appears systemic.
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: Several reviews report technicians recommending expensive replacements when repairs were possible or unnecessary (e.g., recommending $7,000 AC replacement when unit was repairable; recommending $3,000 evaporator coil when $90 diagnostic resolved issue). Pattern suggests potential diagnostic bias toward high-ticket sales.
• ESTIMATE INCONSISTENCY: Multiple complaints about vague estimates with wide ranges ($265 to $2,000 for same job), lack of itemization on invoices, and estimates that differ significantly from competitor quotes.
• SERVICE FEE FRICTION: Recurring complaint about $89-$110 service call fee, though company does waive if work is accepted. Customers perceive this as coercive.
• GENERIC/EMPTY REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain no text or only single words ('unknown', '.', 'Replace entire toilet', 'Awesome work by Jason', 'everything went very well'). These provide no substantive data and suggest possible review padding.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2013-2018. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly 5-star with detailed praise. This temporal shift may indicate either improved practices or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• INCONSISTENT ADMIN: One 2024 review explicitly criticizes poor admin skills and customer responsibility for town/inspection dealings, suggesting operational inconsistency.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Multiple reviews note quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned. Some technicians (Sam, Jason, Jacob) are repeatedly praised; others are criticized for poor communication or aggressive upselling.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 125 reviews with HIGH overall confidence. The score accurately reflects a company with genuine technical expertise and professionalism undermined by persistent and credible pricing complaints. The pricing dimension (62.1) is particularly well-evidenced with 32 specific mentions and should be weighted heavily in decision-making. Prospective customers should expect quality work but should obtain multiple competitive estimates before committing, as First Choice's pricing frequently exceeds market rates by substantial margins.

Sewer Rat demonstrates strong technical expertise and fair pricing, with most customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and honest workmanship. However, the WW Score is tempered by significant and recurring complaints about office staff professionalism—multiple reviews cite rude, dismissive, or hostile phone interactions with the receptionist/office manager. Additionally, there are documented instances of incomplete work, no-shows, and poor follow-through on callbacks. While field technicians are consistently praised, the office communication failures and occasional project completion issues prevent a higher overall score despite the company's genuine technical competence.

• RECURRING OFFICE STAFF ISSUE: At least 7 reviews explicitly mention rude, obnoxious, or unprofessional behavior from the receptionist/office manager (Debbie or unnamed woman). This is a systemic weakness that contradicts the positive field technician feedback.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document incomplete work (faucet installation left lopsided with leaking gaskets), no-shows (stood up twice with no callback), and abandoned jobs (drain disassembled and left on floor). These are serious red flags.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: One review reports a crew member's negligent repair caused a flood with tens of thousands in damage; another reports a technician made a drain worse (plugged it completely) and left a mess without proper cleanup.
• CALLBACK/WARRANTY ISSUES: Several reviews mention failure to honor warranties, refusal to provide credit for incomplete work, and dismissive responses to follow-up requests.
• REVIEW AGE DISTRIBUTION: Approximately 40% of reviews are from 2020 or earlier. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review platform changes. Older reviews (2008-2013) contain more detailed negative feedback about office staff.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple 5-star reviews with identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., 'honest,' 'professional,' 'punctual,' 'fair pricing') appear clustered by date, particularly in June 2024 and June 2020. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the pattern warrants caution.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable at the HIGH confidence level due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (32-58 reviews per category). However, the score masks a critical operational split: field technicians consistently deliver quality work and professionalism, but office staff interactions are a significant liability that materially impacts customer satisfaction and repeat business. Prospective customers should expect excellent technical service but should be prepared for potentially difficult phone interactions and should document all agreements in writing.

Jetter Drains demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and personable service. Pricing and experience are supported by limited mentions but show positive signals—customers noted reasonable pricing and good diagnostic/problem-solving ability. Project completion is inferred from follow-up responsiveness and customer satisfaction, though explicit project delivery details are sparse. The WW Score of 86.7 reflects solid performance, but confidence is moderate due to the small sample size (only 3 reviews) and limited explicit detail on some dimensions.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed—sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Reviews span nearly 3 years (2021–2023); most recent review is from December 2023, which is positive for recency
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback—while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective is atypical and should be noted
• Pricing dimension mentioned in only 2 reviews; project completion details are inferred rather than explicitly stated

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews). While the feedback is consistently positive and recent, a minimum of 8–10 reviews would be needed to establish high confidence in the WW Score. Additional reviews are strongly recommended before making major business decisions based on this assessment.

Dolan Inc. demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with consistent praise for courteous staff, timely service, and quality workmanship across plumbing, electrical, and HVAC services. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers citing excessive charges, lack of transparency, and poor value relative to competitors. The company shows solid technical expertise and responsiveness, but recurring complaints about diagnostic fees, unapproved work progression, and inflated labor costs substantially impact overall trustworthiness. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but older reviews (2013-2019) reveal persistent pricing and follow-through issues that suggest systemic problems.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 13 mentions of pricing issues across reviews spanning 2013-2025, indicating a chronic problem. Complaints include: $500 for uncompleted diagnostic work, $259 for 30-minute wax ring replacement (part costs <$10), $730 for 1.5-hour job with ~$100 part, $500 for garbage disposal installation (should be <$100), and $198/hr diagnostic fees. This pattern is not isolated.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT COMPLETION: Multiple reviews document unfinished work—kick heater and baseboard heater never installed (2019), toilet/shower/faucets not reinstalled after tile work requiring callback (2017), pipe installed below ceiling level preventing drywall installation (2017). These are not minor oversights.
• DIAGNOSTIC AND CONSENT ISSUES: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2025-03-11, 2025-04-10) describe proceeding with repairs without explicit customer approval after diagnostic work, then charging full price. This suggests a pattern of aggressive upselling and poor communication.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Review from 2015-10-23 explicitly states 'sometimes you get a really great plumber...sometimes you get someone who really isn't up to speed,' indicating inconsistent technician quality.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 38 of 67 reviews (57%) are from 2025 (past 6 months), nearly all 5-star with generic praise. Earlier reviews (2013-2019) contain more detailed criticism and lower ratings. The recent surge of 5-star reviews with minimal detail warrants caution—possible review manipulation or selection bias.
• OWNER RESPONSIVENESS: 2017 review documents owner Mike Dolan failing to return calls despite being notified of customer complaint. 2022 review describes technician estimate never followed up on.
• MISDIAGNOSIS: 2017-12-28 review describes major misdiagnosis (recommended $thousands in unnecessary work when actual problem was $hundreds), with no follow-up quote or contact from company.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with caution due to heavy recency bias in the review dataset (57% from past 6 months, nearly all 5-star). While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and project execution, the persistent and detailed pricing complaints spanning 12+ years, combined with documented instances of incomplete work and consent violations, indicate real operational issues. The score is reliable for assessing current professionalism and responsiveness, but the pricing dimension (62.0) is likely understated given the severity and consistency of complaints. Customers should expect premium pricing and should obtain detailed written quotes with explicit approval checkpoints before work begins.

Curcio Plumbing and Heating has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive scheduling, which drives a solid professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious issues including rude owner interactions, unresponsive follow-up, abandoned work, and unprofessional communications, which meaningfully depresses all dimension scores. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers explicitly complained about surprise charges, undisclosed fees, and billing that exceeded estimates, while others praised fair and reasonable pricing, resulting in a below-average pricing score. Project completion is similarly mixed, with several reviews describing incomplete work, failure to follow through on promised callbacks, and jobs requiring multiple visits for the same problem. Technical skill and experience are generally rated positively by satisfied customers, but negative reviews include instances of misdiagnosis and failure to apply basic troubleshooting, limiting the experience score.

• 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank or 'unknown' entries with only a star rating). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews use very brief generic phrases ('Exceptional as always', 'great', 'They are excellent.', 'Every thing was Great') with no specifics. These contribute minimally to scoring and may reflect low-effort or prompted reviews.
• A significant number of older reviews (pre-2020) are present. While included for context, reviews from 2025 and 2024 were weighted more heavily in scoring.
• Multiple 1-star reviews describe a consistent pattern of owner (Vince) being defensive, dismissive, or unresponsive when complaints were raised — this is a recurring and credible pattern across independent reviewers spanning 2013–2024.
• One review (2020-03-21) is extremely detailed and describes a specific misdiagnosis incident with supporting evidence. This is treated as credible and factored into experience and professionalism scores.
• One review (2016-02-25) describes a $15,000 boiler installation followed by warranty disputes and dismissive owner communications — a serious flag for project completion and professionalism.
• One review (2015-09-10) references a BBB complaint and state complaint filed, with no resolution noted. This is a credible negative signal.
• One review (2019-12-30) references high prices and rude staff including the owner calling back to blacklist the customer — consistent with other owner-conduct complaints.
• The recency of positive reviews (many in 2025) is encouraging, but the persistent negative pattern across years warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, 107 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the persistent and specific nature of negative reviews — particularly around owner conduct, surprise billing, and incomplete follow-through — means the score should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment rather than a strong endorsement.