Find Nearby Plumbers In Sayreville, New Jersey

Matthew Brennan Plumbing shows strong technical skill and generally fair pricing, with positive feedback on responsiveness and workmanship quality. However, a critical failure in project completion—specifically a bathroom renovation where a shower valve was left non-functional and the contractor became unresponsive to callbacks—significantly undermines the overall score. Three of four reviews are older than 3 years (2018, 2021, 2023), with only one recent review from 2024. The recent positive review suggests potential improvement, but the unresolved callback issue from 2023 raises concerns about follow-through on complex jobs.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 75% of reviews are older than 1 year (3 of 4 reviews from 2018–2023). Only 1 recent review from 2024. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review from 2023-04-21 explicitly documents incomplete work (shower valve malfunction) and non-responsiveness to multiple callback attempts. This is a serious failure in the PROJECT COMPLETION dimension.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Confidence in overall score is inherently limited due to small sample size.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and age of most data. The 2023 callback failure is a material concern that cannot be ignored, despite positive pricing and technical feedback. Recent performance (2024 review) is encouraging but insufficient to fully offset the documented completion issue.

Vandemark Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise Brian's expertise, reliability, and the office coordination provided by Donna. Professionalism scores are tempered significantly by one detailed 1-star review describing broken promises, ghosting, and failure to follow through on committed work — a serious project completion failure that cannot be dismissed. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent by multiple reviewers, though the negative review raises concerns about upfront payments with no delivery. The experience dimension scores well based on explicit mentions of expertise and craft, but the small total review count and the weight of the negative review prevent a high overall score. The majority of positive reviews are also quite old (2012–2019), reducing their reliability for assessing current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Five of seven reviews are from 2019 or earlier, with the oldest dating to 2012. Only two reviews are from 2022. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2022) describes the contractor taking a $150 upfront payment, making promises, then going completely silent — a pattern consistent with abandonment of work. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 7 total reviews span a 10-year period. This is an insufficient volume to establish reliable patterns, and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Several positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great team,' 'Prompt excellent service'). While not conclusively fake, the lack of specificity in older reviews reduces their evidentiary weight.
• GHOSTING/ABANDONMENT CONCERN: The negative reviewer explicitly states the contractor disappeared for 6 weeks, had a full voicemail, and never followed up after taking payment — this is a material risk flag for prospective customers.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review sample, the significant age of most positive reviews, and one credible and detailed negative review describing payment taken with no work completed — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

People's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across a large review base spanning roughly 18 years. In recent reviews (2024–2025), professionalism scores are strong, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, and technician courtesy — particularly Matt, Sergio, and Josh. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — many from the 2016–2022 period but some as recent as 2025 — describe serious failures in project completion, including work that failed shortly after service, refusal to honor warranties beyond 30 days, abandoned jobs through AHS, and technicians leaving without fully resolving issues. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out excessive markups, inflated labor rates, and charges for fixing the company's own mistakes. Experience scores are buoyed by many positive accounts of skilled diagnosis and problem-solving, but are dragged down by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, poor workmanship, and technicians lacking proper equipment. The overall picture is a company with capable technicians who perform well in direct-hire situations but has a documented pattern of poor accountability, warranty disputes, and pricing transparency issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2017-06-15 and two dated 2018-09-22 appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates. These were counted once each for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2013-09-29 are near-identical. Counted once for scoring.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: A large portion of reviews (roughly 60+) predate 2023. The most recent 12 months (2024–2025) show a notably more positive trend, but older negative reviews carry significant weight given their specificity and volume.
• AHS/WARRANTY PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe a consistent pattern of People's Plumbing closing AHS claims without completing work, refusing to return, and offering only 30-day warranties. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE: Multiple reviewers cite specific dollar amounts and hourly rate calculations (e.g., $636/hr, $600/hr, $150 charge to fix their own installation error, excessive part markups). These are not vague complaints and significantly reduce the pricing score.
• GENERIC 5-STAR REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown' as text with 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data. This pattern may indicate placeholder or unverified reviews.
• SERGIO CONFLICT: One review (2022) makes a specific and serious allegation against technician Sergio involving theft of a thermostat. A separate review (2020) praises Sergio highly. This conflict is noted but the allegation is treated as a single data point.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple 5-star reviews from June 2025 mention the same technician pair (Matt and Todd) within days of each other. While not conclusive, the clustering and similar phrasing warrants mild caution about review authenticity for that specific batch.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 18 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the significant volume of detailed negative reviews describing systemic issues with warranty honoring, pricing transparency, and project completion — particularly for customers routed through home warranty programs.

Apollo Sewer and Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension: multiple reviews across several years describe no-shows without calls, unreturned messages, rude office staff, and outright ghosting of paying customers — including a 2024 incident where a 69-year-old customer was left with unfinished work and five ignored callbacks. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviews citing abandoned or partially completed jobs, an uninspected report never delivered, and a pattern of promising follow-up visits that never materialize. Pricing is inconsistent — several reviewers praised fair and competitive rates, while others reported significant overcharging, a mid-job price increase after a handshake deal, and a quote of $650 for work completed elsewhere for $200. Experience scores higher than the other dimensions, as reviewers who did receive service often praised the technical skill of the technicians themselves, suggesting the field workers are capable but the business operations and reliability are the core failure points.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Older reviews (2013–2016) skew more positive. More weight has been given to recent reviews per scoring rules.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: At least 3 independent reviews describe jobs left incomplete or follow-up visits promised but never honored — this is a consistent and serious pattern, not isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: At least 5 reviews explicitly describe unreturned calls, no-shows without notification, or rude responses when customers followed up. This is a systemic issue.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews describe both fair pricing and significant overcharging, including a mid-job price increase after a verbal agreement. This inconsistency reduces confidence in the pricing score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: Review language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative experiences with named individuals and specific job details. No evidence of coordinated fake reviews detected.
• OLDER DATA NOTE: Approximately 12 of 26 reviews are from 2019 or earlier, some dating back to 2011–2015. These have been weighted less heavily than reviews from 2022–2024.

This WW Score is based on 26 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, but the strong negative trend in recent reviews (2022–2024) suggests the score may overstate current performance if older positive reviews are masking a deteriorating business.

Buttermark Plumbing shows severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically undermined by multiple reports of rude, combative, and abusive phone staff, with several customers describing verbal abuse and disrespect. Project completion is compromised by incomplete diagnostics, unresolved problems requiring multiple callbacks, and at least one instance of no-show service. Pricing concerns are substantial, with customers reporting excessive charges for minimal work, lack of transparency, and bills significantly higher than competitors. While some technical competence is evident in successful installations and emergency response, poor diagnostic work and failure to resolve underlying issues limit experience scores. The company demonstrates a pattern of declining service quality over time, with long-standing customers reporting deterioration.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of rude/abusive phone staff across multiple reviews (2019-2022), suggesting systemic customer service failure rather than isolated incident
• Multiple instances of incomplete work and failure to diagnose root causes on first visit, leading to unnecessary callbacks and additional charges
• Significant pricing complaints: $272 for 15-minute toilet valve replacement, $675 for unresolved water hammer issue, $440 additional charge for radiator valve that should have been diagnosed initially
• At least one documented no-show appointment (2019-02-01 review)
• Discrepancy between office promises and field performance (pool heater repair promised but refused on-site)
• Review dates span 2015-2022 with majority of negative reviews concentrated in 2019-2022, indicating deterioration in service quality over time
• One positive review from 2016 explicitly mentions customer satisfaction recovery after initial complaint, suggesting some responsiveness but inconsistent execution

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (13 reviews), but the consistency and specificity of complaints across multiple dimensions and time periods suggests genuine systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The concentration of negative reviews in recent years (2019-2022) indicates declining service quality. Potential customers should seek alternative providers.

Mastropiero Plumbing demonstrates significant and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication (missed callbacks, no follow-up), rudeness from office staff, scheduling failures, and lack of responsiveness to customer inquiries. Pricing is a major complaint with multiple customers reporting excessive charges, double-billing, misleading estimates, and aggressive fee structures that appear designed to maximize revenue rather than serve customers. Project completion is undermined by incomplete work requiring multiple visits, failure to honor warranties, and refusal to take responsibility for errors. While some customers report competent technical work and fair pricing in isolated cases, the overwhelming pattern shows a business prioritizing profit extraction over customer satisfaction and quality service delivery.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS: 10 of 14 reviews (71%) are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints of poor service, indicating systemic business practice issues rather than isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews explicitly mention missed callbacks, no follow-up after diagnostics, and unresponsive office staff. This is mentioned in at least 6 reviews and represents a critical operational failure.
• PRICING MANIPULATION: Consistent pattern across multiple reviews of misleading quotes, hidden charges, double-billing, and aggressive upselling. Customers report being charged for diagnostics that don't guarantee service, multiple diagnostic fees for same issue, and pressure to pay for unnecessary work.
• WARRANTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews show company refusing to honor warranties, denying responsibility for damage caused during installation, and blaming customers or manufacturers for company errors.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe office manager (Janice/Denise) as rude, argumentative, unavailable, and dismissive of customer concerns. One review describes threatening legal action over a stopped payment check.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2017-2022 (recent), while the few positive reviews are from 2013-2019, suggesting potential deterioration in service quality over time.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between 1-star reviews (71%) and 4-5 star reviews (21%), with 5-star reviews praising professionalism and pricing while 1-star reviews describe opposite experiences. This suggests either highly variable service quality or potential selection bias in positive reviews.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable given the large sample size (14 reviews) and consistent negative patterns across multiple independent dimensions. The score should be trusted as a strong indicator that this company has serious operational and customer service problems, though the presence of some positive reviews suggests service quality may vary by technician or job type.