Find Nearby Plumbers In Paterson, New Jersey

The majority of reviewers speak positively about professionalism, citing prompt responses, courteous attitudes, clear communication, and on-time arrivals — though one 1-star review from 2017 explicitly flags a complete failure to respond to three calls and an email, which meaningfully drags the professionalism score down. Project completion is generally strong, with multiple reviewers describing jobs finished as promised, follow-through on additional work, and callbacks honored, though the small total review count limits full confidence. Experience scores well based on specific technical praise — repiping, boiler repair, shower valve replacement — with reviewers noting quality workmanship and proactive problem identification. Pricing is mentioned in four reviews and is consistently described as fair or in-line with market rates, with one reviewer noting the cost came in lower than expected, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score.

• One 1-star review (2017) describes a complete non-response to multiple contact attempts — this is a significant professionalism concern and has been factored into the professionalism score.
• Several reviews reference different contractors by name (William, Derek, Jon/Johnathan), suggesting this may be a composite profile aggregating reviews across multiple businesses or plumbers. Scores may not reflect a single consistent operator.
• Three reviews are dated 2019 or earlier, and one is from 2017 — over half the reviews are more than 4 years old. Recency weighting has been applied; older reviews carry reduced influence on current reliability.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though most positive reviews are 5-star. The presence of specific names, job details, and one negative review reduces suspicion of fabrication.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review base is small (9 reviews), spans multiple years with several outdated entries, and may aggregate feedback across more than one contractor, which limits how confidently these scores can be applied to any single current operator.

Super Plumbers demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with staff consistently praised for responsiveness, politeness, and emergency service capability. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, though limited explicit detail on value comparisons. Project completion shows mixed results: most jobs are completed successfully and on time, but one significant 2022 callback failure (boiler thermocouple replacement that failed within 6 days, with poor follow-up communication) substantially impacts this dimension. The company excels at emergency response and customer communication in most cases, but the January 2022 incident reveals a critical gap in accountability and professionalism during follow-up service.

• Review from 2022-01-06 describes serious service failure and lack of professionalism in callback handling—this is a material negative data point that significantly impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• Most reviews are older than 2 years (4 of 6 reviews from 2018-2020), with only 2 recent reviews (2023 and 2022). Recency weighting suggests current performance may differ from historical data.
• One review (2020-12-26) contains slightly repetitive phrasing ('very professionally' appears twice, 'very very nice guy' and 'very very reasonably priced') but includes specific details and context, so not flagged as fake.
• Limited sample size (6 reviews) reduces statistical reliability despite moderate confidence levels.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with caution due to small sample size and age of most reviews; the 2022 service failure is a material concern that prevents a higher score, and recent performance data is limited to only one detailed review from 2023.

William Haser demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple plumbing projects, with customers praising his preparation, attention to detail, and workmanship. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on limited feedback. However, a significant 2006 shower remodeling project resulted in cracked tiles that failed even after one service call, indicating potential quality control issues with certain work types. The mixed track record—excellent performance on standard plumbing tasks but failure on tile work—suggests variable execution quality depending on project scope.

• Two reviews (2016-06-16 and 2016-05-16) contain minimal or no substantive content ('.' and 'unknown'), reducing data quality
• One review from 2006 is significantly older than others (18+ years old); recency bias favors more recent positive reviews
• The 2006 negative review describes a major project failure (cracked tiles recurring after service), which substantially impacts project completion confidence despite being dated
• Limited mention count for pricing (1) and experience (2) reduces confidence in those dimension scores

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution due to limited review volume (4 usable reviews), significant age disparity in the dataset, and the presence of one substantial project failure that contradicts otherwise positive feedback on standard plumbing work.

Geraldine demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, courtesy, and attention to detail across multiple reviews. Project completion is supported by numerous mentions of timely work and finished jobs, though one critical 1-star review explicitly states poor workmanship requiring professional remediation, significantly lowering this dimension's score. Experience is evidenced by positive comments on skill and precision, but pricing data is minimal (only one mention of 'reasonable' pricing). The stark contrast between seven 5-star reviews and one 1-star review citing substandard work raises reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2023-08-25) directly contradicts the pattern, stating the customer paid for professional remediation of poorly executed work. This is a serious quality concern that cannot be ignored.
• PATTERN ALERT: Six of eight reviews mention mask-wearing, which appears in reviews from 2020-2022 but not recent ones. This repetitive detail across multiple reviews is unusual and may suggest curated or influenced feedback.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 2+ years old (2020-2022). Only two reviews are from 2023, limiting confidence in current performance.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review 6 ('GP handyman is by far the best...I absolutely loved my new wardrobe!') is vague and mentions wardrobe work not mentioned elsewhere; may be misattributed or fake.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total is a small dataset for reliable scoring.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and project completion show MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence, the presence of one explicit quality failure review directly contradicting the majority pattern, combined with mostly older reviews and suspicious repetitive details, significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects this conflict but may not fully capture the risk indicated by the 1-star remediation claim.

This contractor demonstrates strong technical skill and generally reliable service, with multiple reviews praising workmanship, responsiveness, and problem-solving ability. However, a significant 1-star review from 2019 raises serious concerns about pricing transparency, job completion, and billing practices—specifically underbidding ($200-300 quoted vs. $517 charged) and charging for incomplete work requiring a callback. Professionalism and experience scores are supported by consistent positive feedback, but the pricing dimension is heavily weighted down by explicit complaints about fair value and hidden charges. The oldest review is from 2012, limiting recency data.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2019-03-12) explicitly alleges significant overcharging ($517 vs. $200-300 quote), incomplete work requiring callback, poor cleanup, and billing for time not worked. This directly contradicts the 'fair pricing' and 'project completion' claims in other reviews and suggests potential systemic billing issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of six reviews are older than 3 years (2012, 2019, 2020, 2022). Only one review is from 2024. Limited recent data reduces confidence in current performance.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Five reviews are uniformly 5-star with generic praise ('great,' 'reliable,' 'honest'). Combined with one extreme 1-star outlier, this suggests either highly variable service quality or possible review authenticity issues. The 5-star reviews lack specific technical details compared to the detailed complaint in the 1-star review.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill appears solid, the explicit pricing and billing complaint in the 1-star review is detailed and specific enough to warrant serious consideration. The contractor's current pricing practices are unclear due to limited recent reviews. Recommend requesting itemized quotes and clarifying billing terms before engaging.

First Class Plumbing shows strong technical skill and experience (85/100), with multiple reviews praising workmanship quality and problem-solving ability. Pricing is fair and transparent (82.5/100), with customers noting competitive rates and willingness to work with payment plans. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by one severe incident involving owner profanity toward customers and a critical failure case where incomplete work caused $1,230 in additional damage. Project completion is inconsistent, with excellent follow-through in most cases but a catastrophic failure in the 2024 toilet repair. The 2024 negative review is recent and detailed, contrasting sharply with older positive reviews, suggesting potential service quality decline or inconsistency.

• CRITICAL: Most positive reviews are 4-9 years old (2013-2021); most recent review (2024-10-10) is severely negative with specific, verifiable damage claims
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 reviews from past 3 years; 1 is 1-star with detailed allegations of incomplete work and owner misconduct
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2015 review documents owner using profanity with customers and refusing to discuss damage; this is a serious character/conduct issue
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: 2024 review alleges band-aid repair (glue around toilet base) instead of required toilet replacement, causing water damage to unit below and requiring $1,230 corrective work
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (mostly pre-2022) and recent 1-star reviews citing serious failures; suggests either service degradation or inconsistent quality across team members
• CALLBACK FAILURE: 2024 review explicitly states contractor 'never showed up' when called to address recurring leak one month after initial repair

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical reviews are strong, the recent 2024 negative review is detailed, specific, and contradicts the positive trend; it alleges serious professional failures (incomplete work, owner misconduct, no-show callbacks) that directly undermine confidence in current service quality. The 9-year gap between most positive reviews and recent negative reviews suggests potential service decline. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying current ownership/management before hiring.