Find Nearby Plumbers In Newark, New Jersey

Admiral Plumbing's review record is dominated by a large volume of highly detailed, credible negative reviews spanning 2013–2021, with recurring and consistent complaints about rudeness, no-shows, missed appointments, and aggressive behavior by the owner Gary. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and scores extremely low, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing rude phone interactions, failure to show up, threatening callbacks over negative reviews, and belligerent on-site behavior. Pricing scores poorly as well, with multiple reviewers citing bait-and-switch quoting, hidden charges, refusal to honor Yelp vouchers, and overcharging relative to competitors. Project completion is also weak, with numerous accounts of jobs left unfinished, problems not resolved, and no-shows without notice. Experience scores somewhat higher, as a minority of positive reviews do describe competent technical work, but even some positive reviewers noted initial misdiagnoses or employee skill gaps that required owner intervention.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Great service! Fixed my bathroom up really well! definitely recommend. Gary and his staff are all very professional and skilled.' and 'I was very happy with recent emergency calls with Gary on AC units as well as plumbing. The services were fast and reliable.'). These are consistent with patterns of fake or solicited reviews.
• OWNER RETALIATION PATTERN: Multiple reviewers explicitly state they were called or threatened by the contractor (Gary) after leaving negative reviews, with at least two reviewers noting they recorded the calls. This is a serious red flag about business ethics and integrity.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2021), with only 3 reviews from 2021. The negative pattern is consistent across the entire review timeline from 2013 to 2021, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION CONCERN: At least two reviewers independently noted that the 5-star reviews appeared fake or suspicious, citing that those reviewers had very few total reviews on their profiles — a common indicator of solicited or inauthentic reviews.
• THIRD-PARTY INSURANCE COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews reference Admiral Plumbing being contracted through American Home Shield, with complaints about delayed reporting, unresolved issues, and poor coordination — suggesting systemic service delivery problems beyond individual incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large sample of 52 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the low score is well-supported by consistent, detailed, and independently corroborated negative experiences; the score should be considered highly reliable and trustworthy.

The reviews paint a largely negative picture of Rooter Master across all dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple accounts of poor cleanup, unresponsiveness to follow-up calls and texts, and a contractor who went silent after leaving a damaged bathroom floor. Project completion is a major concern, with at least two reviews describing work that was left in worse condition than before — including a trip-hazard sidewalk cut, mud throughout a basement, and a bathroom floor damaged by improperly applied grout. Pricing receives mixed signals: one reviewer praises fair pricing while another explicitly states they were overcharged compared to a competitor. Experience scores low due to a review describing a young, unskilled technician who worsened an emergency situation, and another describing sloppy, damaging workmanship on a toilet replacement. The one strongly positive review is noted but carries reduced weight due to fake review concerns.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR BIASED REVIEW: The 5-star review from 2024-04-10 contains a defensive disclaimer attacking negative reviewers ('Bad reviews on here are complaints from people who can't communicate...'), which is atypical of genuine customer reviews and suggests possible owner or affiliate authorship.
• RECENCY NOTE: One negative review dates to 2011 (over 13 years old) and was given reduced weight in scoring. The remaining four reviews are from 2024, which are treated as primary evidence.
• LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size. Confidence in the overall score is limited.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews (toilet replacement, communication inquiry) explicitly mention the contractor failing to respond to follow-up contact, suggesting a systemic issue with post-service communication.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Two separate reviews describe physical damage left behind after service (damaged sidewalk/basement mess, damaged bathroom floor tiles), suggesting a recurring workmanship and cleanup problem.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews with a small sample size, and should be treated as a preliminary signal rather than a definitive assessment — however, the consistency of negative feedback across multiple dimensions and recent dates (2024) does lend credibility to the low score.

This contractor's reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple appointment cancellations, a truck breakdown causing significant delays, and a failure to disclose hourly rates upfront — a complaint raised independently by two separate reviewers. Pricing is a major pain point: hidden rates of $200/hour were revealed only after work was completed, tax was forgotten and charged as an afterthought, and one customer paid over $500 for three washers with one faucet still leaking. Project completion is poor, with at least two instances of work left unfinished or ineffective, and one customer reporting the same problem recurring weeks later. The single positive review praising fast and professional furnace installation provides a small upward signal on experience, but it is outweighed by the volume of negative technical outcomes described in the other reviews.

• Two reviews dated 2017-06-02 describe nearly identical experiences — same truck breakdown story, same $200/hour rate surprise, same tax charged afterward, same location detail. These may be duplicate submissions from the same customer or two customers who experienced the same job. Scores for those reviews were treated as two separate data points but this pattern warrants caution.
• The one 5-star review (2016) is vague, contains generic praise, and lacks specific detail about the work performed. It cannot be fully discounted but contributes low evidentiary weight.
• Three of four reviews are older than 12 months from a typical analysis date; the most recent negative review is from 2023, which is the most relevant data point and should be weighted most heavily.
• Overall review volume is very low (4 reviews). The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not statistically reliable.

This score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years, with two potentially duplicate submissions, making it low-volume and low-reliability — treat as a warning signal rather than a definitive assessment.

The two usable reviews paint a consistently negative picture of this contractor. Professionalism is severely damaged by explicit accounts of rudeness, hanging up on customers, and dismissive behavior from both a repairman and a manager. The one pricing mention describes a $100 consultation fee that the customer found unreasonable and non-transparent. Project completion is also poor, with one reviewer explicitly stating the company failed to honor its own guarantee and misdiagnosed the root cause of the problem. The third review contained no usable text and could not contribute meaningful data to any dimension.

• Only 2 of 3 reviews contained usable content — the third review text was 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring.
• All scored reviews are older than 12 months (dated 2019 and 2020), reducing recency reliability.
• Sample size is extremely small (2 usable reviews). Scores should be treated with significant caution and are not statistically reliable.
• Both negative reviews independently corroborate rude behavior, which adds credibility to the professionalism concerns despite the small sample.

This WW Score is based on only 2 usable reviews, all older than 3 years, and should be considered highly preliminary — while the consistent pattern of negative feedback is credible, far more recent reviews would be needed to assess this contractor's current performance with any confidence.

These reviews describe Homeowners Hub, a home repair concierge service, not an individual contractor or plumber. The reviews praise the company's vetting process, responsiveness, and coordination of multiple service providers, but do not provide evaluable data on any specific contractor's professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. The reviews are too generic and focused on the intermediary service rather than the actual tradespeople performing the work.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are for a concierge/intermediary service, not a contractor or plumber. Cannot assess individual tradesperson performance.
• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise and no specific project details or challenges mentioned.
• Reviews are dated 2016–2018 (6–8 years old); no recent data available.
• No explicit mentions of pricing transparency, punctuality, project timelines, or specific technical work quality.
• Suspected pattern of generic positive language without substantive evidence of contractor performance.

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score because the reviews evaluate a service intermediary rather than a contractor's direct performance, and contain insufficient specific evidence about any of the four scored dimensions.

With only 4 reviews available, this dataset is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. Professionalism is supported by 3 mentions highlighting respectfulness, honesty, and accommodating service. Project completion is mentioned in all 4 reviews with consistent positive outcomes (quick resolution, problem fixed). Experience is mentioned in only 2 reviews with positive technical assessment. Pricing data is entirely absent from all reviews, preventing evaluation of value and fairness. The review dates span 2019–2023, with 3 reviews older than 1 year.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 reviews met but confidence remains limited due to small dataset
• RECENCY CONCERN: 75% of reviews (3 of 4) are older than 1 year (2019–2020); only 1 review from 2023
• MISSING PRICING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, value, quotes, or affordability; cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews 2 and 3 contain vague language ('great job,' 'did a good job,' 'quick and hassle free') with minimal specific detail; Review 2 contains awkward phrasing ('took some money,' 'Great swing on the job') suggesting possible translation or authenticity concerns
• LIMITED DETAIL: Most reviews lack specifics about what work was performed, how problems were diagnosed, or what made service exceptional beyond general satisfaction

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews) and missing critical data dimensions (pricing). The professionalism and project completion scores are based on limited mentions and should be treated as preliminary indicators only. Recency bias is significant with 75% of data older than 1 year. Do not rely on this assessment for major contractor decisions without additional recent reviews.