Find Nearby Plumbers In Newark, New Jersey

Accu-Rooter earns solid marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, responsiveness, friendly technicians, and successful resolution of difficult clogs that other plumbers could not fix. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — consistently cite incomplete or substandard work, failure to clean up after jobs, rude technicians, and pricing disputes including bait-and-switch allegations, which meaningfully suppress scores across all dimensions. The project completion score reflects both strong follow-through in most cases (including a noted guarantee honored at no charge) and serious failures in others, including a boiler installation condemned by three subsequent plumbers as not passing inspection. Pricing scores are tempered by multiple independent complaints of overcharging and price changes after job completion. The experience dimension benefits from numerous accounts of technicians solving problems others could not, but is pulled down by documented cases of poor workmanship and unresolved callbacks.

• 3 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• 1-star review from 2023-06-10 describes a $6,000 boiler installation that three subsequent plumbers said would not pass inspection, with property damage (cracked stairs, broken storm window) left unaddressed by the company. This is a serious workmanship and accountability flag.
• 1-star review from 2019-02-01 describes pipes installed unevenly, repeated failure to call back, and a receptionist hanging up on the customer — indicating a pattern of poor follow-through and customer service breakdown.
• 1-star review from 2015-06-12 alleges bait-and-switch pricing and potential discriminatory upselling. While unverifiable, this is a serious allegation that warrants flagging.
• 1-star review from 2014-10-14 and 2014-10-20 both describe messes left behind and rude technicians, consistent with other negative reviews — suggesting this is not an isolated pattern.
• Recency note: The majority of negative reviews are from 2014–2023, with the most recent negative review dated 2023-06-10. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, which may indicate improvement over time, but the older negative reviews are numerous enough to weigh on the score.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service', 'Always on call for emergency!') with no specific detail. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, these contribute limited scoring value and were treated as low-evidence data points.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, but the volume of brief, undetailed 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with usable content spanning 2013–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence due to mention volume, but users should weigh the recurring negative patterns around workmanship, cleanup, and pricing disputes before making a hiring decision.

Bob's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews spanning many years, with recurring praise for punctuality, professionalism, and technical skill. However, several credible negative reviews meaningfully drag down the score: one customer was charged $130 for an incomplete diagnosis that a $12 part ultimately resolved, another received no response across multiple contact attempts, and a long-term customer reported a pattern of Bob sending unqualified substitutes whose work had to be redone. A separate reviewer documented a failure to fix a reported leak and no offer of compensation. Pricing is generally described as reasonable or fair, but at least two reviewers flagged it as expensive or not great, and the $130 half-hour visit with a missed diagnosis is a notable concern. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to documented instances of incomplete work, ignored callbacks, and quality degradation when Bob stopped doing the work himself.

• 4 reviews contain only 'unknown' or 'Routine' as text with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several reviews are extremely old (2006–2012) and may not reflect current service quality. The majority of detailed reviews are from 2017 or earlier, with only a handful from 2019–2023.
• The most recent reviews (2023) are both negative, which is a recency flag suggesting possible quality decline.
• Some older 5-star reviews use all-caps formatting and generic praise with no specifics (e.g., 'THEY ARE VERY GOOD'), which may indicate lower authenticity — confidence slightly reduced for those data points.
• A long-term customer (2010 review) explicitly noted Bob stopped doing the work himself and sent unqualified substitutes, with at least one job requiring a redo — this is a significant quality-control flag.
• The 2008 negative review documents a failure to complete called-for work and no remediation offered, corroborating the project completion concerns raised in more recent reviews.

This WW Score is based on 36 reviews with usable data spanning 2006–2023, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume, but the heavy skew toward older reviews and a pattern of recent negative experiences means the score should be treated as a historical average rather than a reliable indicator of current service quality.

Above All Services performs consistently well across all four scored dimensions based on 7 reviews. Professionalism is a clear strength, with multiple reviewers citing promptness, politeness, responsiveness, and same-day availability in urgent situations. Pricing is frequently praised as fair, transparent, and competitive — one reviewer noted the final charge matched the quote exactly and came in hundreds less than competitors. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs that were finished cleanly, tested, and followed through without issue, including handling unexpected complications on a water heater install. Experience is evidenced by skilled adaptation to unforeseen problems, correct technical recommendations, and successful work across diverse job types including gas lines, boilers, and appliance relocation. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the fact that most reviews are from 2021–2022, with only one review from the past 12 months.

• Only 1 of 7 reviews is from the past 12 months (May 2024). The remaining 6 reviews are from 2021–2022, meaning this score may not reflect current service quality.
• Review pool is small (7 reviews). Scores carry moderate overall confidence despite individual dimension mention counts reaching HIGH thresholds.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While individual reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the absence of any critical feedback across all 7 reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small and predominantly dated review pool — treat it as a promising but not fully validated signal of current contractor quality.

Quick Response earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most consistently praised attributes across all seven reviews. Reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courteous behavior, and thorough follow-through — including a technician who drove to New York after hours to source a part the same night. Experience scores well based on specific mentions of competent installations, problem-solving, and identifying issues the customer had not noticed. Pricing receives a conservative score due to only two mentions — one noting cost-saving suggestions and one implying fair value — which is insufficient to establish a reliable pricing profile. Overall, the pattern of feedback is genuinely positive and specific enough to be credible.

• Two reviews are significantly outdated: one from 2013 and one from 2007. These are over 10 years old and may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or quality standards. They were included in scoring but carry reduced real-world relevance.
• Only 7 total reviews analyzed — this is a small sample size. Scores should be interpreted with caution as a few negative experiences could substantially shift results.
• No negative or mixed reviews are present in this dataset. While the reviews appear genuine due to specific details and varied language, the absence of any criticism across all 7 reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is moderately reliable for professionalism, project completion, and experience due to consistent, specific, and credible reviewer feedback, but the overall score should be treated with caution given the very small review pool of 7 and the inclusion of two reviews that are more than a decade old.

Frank of Pace Drain receives consistently strong praise across all five reviews, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly cited dimension — reviewers highlight punctuality, clear communication, phone responsiveness, and thorough cleanup. Experience scores well too, with multiple reviewers noting his diagnostic ability, use of appropriate tools, and willingness to explain the work in detail. Project completion is well-supported, with jobs described as fully resolved including a notable case where Frank worked until a drain was completely clear on a Saturday night emergency call. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews but both are positive, with one reviewer calling rates 'excellent' for a late-night emergency, lending a conservative but favorable score. The overall picture is of a reliable, skilled solo operator, though the small and aging review set limits full confidence.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings — while not conclusive of fraud, this warrants mild caution.
• Review dates range from 2015 to 2021, with no reviews in the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). The most recent review is from March 2021, meaning all reviews are over 3 years old. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• Review volume is very low (5 reviews total), which significantly limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism appears in any review, which is unusual even for high-quality contractors. However, reviews do contain specific, varied details (sock in drain, apartment buildings, Saturday night emergency) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — the small number of reviews, all-5-star pattern, and the fact that the most recent review is from 2021 mean the score cannot be considered a reliable current assessment of contractor performance.

TM Adams demonstrates strong professionalism across 9 reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. Project completion is solid with 8 mentions showing timely work and follow-through, though one 2024 review explicitly states failure to diagnose/fix a faucet issue, requiring a second plumber. Pricing receives moderate support (6 mentions) with most calling it 'reasonable' or 'fair,' but the negative 2024 review cites $100+ for 20 minutes of unsuccessful work, creating pricing tension. Technical experience is well-documented across 7 reviews with strong knowledge demonstrated, though the recent faucet failure raises questions about consistency.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3-6 years old (2018-2021). The most recent review (2024-03-23) is sharply negative and contradicts the pattern, suggesting possible service quality decline or inconsistency.
• PRICING CONTRADICTION: Five reviews praise 'reasonable/fair' pricing, but the 2024 review explicitly criticizes overcharging ($100 for 20 minutes of failed work). This suggests either variable pricing practices or inconsistent service quality affecting perceived value.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2018-2021 contain nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional and courteous,' 'clean work space,' 'Tom always answered questions'). While not conclusive, the repetitive language combined with all 5-star ratings and generic praise warrants caution.
• SKILL CONSISTENCY ISSUE: The 2024 review explicitly states the contractor 'couldn't figure out how to fix my faucet' and required a 'real plumber' to solve it. This directly contradicts claims of expertise and raises questions about technician consistency or vetting.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (most data is 3-6 years old), a sharp negative recent review contradicting the historical pattern, and potential fake review indicators in older reviews. The WW Score of 82.3 likely overstates current reliability; recent performance appears weaker than historical data suggests.