Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Dynasty Mechanical and Excavation exhibits a deeply polarized performance pattern with severe reliability and follow-through issues that significantly undermine the score. While technical skill and workmanship are evident in positive reviews (72/100), critical failures in professionalism (48/100) and project completion (42/100) dominate the narrative. Multiple customers report non-responsiveness, abandoned work, non-refunded payments, and unfinished jobs spanning months to years. Pricing concerns (45/100) include overcharges and lack of transparency. The company demonstrates competence on executed work but catastrophic failures in communication, accountability, and honoring commitments.

• SEVERE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 6) report complete non-responsiveness after payment or work initiation, with some spanning 12-18+ months of unanswered calls/emails
• LEGAL ISSUES: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention small claims court judgments against the company, with customers reporting unpaid refunds and unresolved disputes
• INCONSISTENT DELIVERY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising professionalism and detailed 1-star reviews documenting systematic failures in the same dimensions
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 3 reviews contain only ratings (5.0, 5.0, 1.0) with no text, reducing data quality
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2022 period, but recent 2025 reviews show same non-responsiveness pattern persisting, suggesting systemic unresolved issues
• POTENTIAL CAPACITY ISSUE: Multiple reviews mention owner 'too busy' or unable to follow up, suggesting business model or management problems

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence in individual dimensions. The extreme polarization (5-star vs. 1-star with identical complaint patterns) and documented legal judgments indicate systemic operational failures that create substantial risk. Positive reviews reflect good technical work on completed jobs, but negative reviews document a pattern of non-completion, non-responsiveness, and financial disputes that persist across multiple years. Potential customers should heavily weight the project completion and professionalism concerns over technical capability ratings.

This contractor's review record is deeply polarized. Several long-term customers from 2007–2015 describe Tony as reliable, fair, knowledgeable, and professional, which provides a positive baseline. However, three highly detailed negative reviews — including two from what appear to be the same large bathroom renovation project (2021 and 2023) and one from a tankless water heater installation (2011) — describe serious and consistent patterns: dramatic mid-job price escalation far beyond original quotes, abandonment of unfinished work, use of unlicensed labor, technical incompetence, harassment of clients, and attempts to manipulate building departments and credit bureaus. These negative reviews are specific, corroborated, and credible, and they heavily drag down all four dimensions. The positive reviews are largely older (pre-2016) and several lack meaningful detail, limiting their counterbalancing weight.

• Two reviews (2021 and 2023, both 1-star) describe what appears to be the same bathroom renovation project from the same client acting as general contractor — this is likely the same incident described twice, and both have been counted but treated as a single project event for scoring purposes.
• Three of the four 'unknown' or near-empty reviews ('unknown', 'See above', 'It went well') provide no usable dimension data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of positive reviews are dated 2007–2015, making them 9–17 years old. Only one positive review exists from the past 5 years, and none from the past 12 months.
• The two most recent substantive reviews (2021 and 2023) are both 1-star and describe serious misconduct including unlicensed labor, no workers' compensation coverage, mid-job price doubling, job abandonment, permit interference, credit report manipulation, and prolonged harassment of an elderly homeowner.
• The 2011 negative review independently corroborates the same pattern of mid-job price escalation, technical errors, and failure to return for corrections — suggesting this is a recurring behavioral pattern rather than an isolated incident.
• Recency weighting significantly penalizes this contractor: the trend of reviews is clearly negative and worsening over time.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is modest, the positive reviews are predominantly outdated, and the three detailed negative reviews are specific, independently corroborated, and describe serious and recurring misconduct that materially undermines confidence in this contractor.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies in project completion and professionalism. Two detailed negative reviews document failure to complete work, non-responsiveness, unprofessional appearance and behavior, and broken commitments. A bathroom remodel was abandoned after 3 hours with $1,500 unpaid, and a sewer job involved a $300 diagnostic fee followed by no-shows and rescheduling. One positive review from 2020 praised quick response and upfront pricing, but the weight of evidence from more recent reviews (2021-2022) reveals systemic issues. The first review appears to be defensive self-promotion and lacks credible detail.

• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: First review (2024-05-05) exhibits classic fake review patterns — dismisses negative reviews as fake, uses generic praise ('great understanding and intelligent guy'), lacks specific details, and appears to be self-promotional. This review should be heavily discounted.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most substantive reviews are from 2020-2022 (3-4 years old). Only one recent review (2024) exists, and it is suspected fake. Current contractor performance is unclear.
• SEVERE PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two independent reviews document abandoned work and non-completion. One involved small claims court judgment for $1,500 that was never paid.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Documented no-shows, poor communication, unprofessional appearance (flip-flops/shorts for heavy plumbing work), contradictory statements about rain work, and dismissive attitude toward customer concerns.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data and one suspected fake review, but the pattern of serious failures in two detailed negative reviews from 2021-2022 is credible and concerning. The contractor's current reliability cannot be confidently assessed.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by three detailed 1-star reviews describing poor communication, unanswered questions, a hung-up call during a plumbing emergency, and a failure to follow through on a promised text — all from 2022–2024. The positive professionalism mentions are older (2021) and several are vague or generic, reducing their evidentiary weight. Pricing received a very low score due to one explicit complaint about a near-$1,000 cash-only quote with a reportedly broken card machine, which raises transparency concerns; one positive mention of a technician being 'reasonable' provides only partial offset. Project completion scores moderately — two positive reviews describe jobs being finished well and even improved upon, but the three negative reviews describe situations where service was never rendered at all, which counts as non-completion. Experience scores modestly positive based on a small number of reviews praising technician skill, but confidence is limited by the low mention count and the recency gap.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews are dated May 2021, clustered within an 8-day window (May 14–22, 2021). This tight clustering is a potential indicator of coordinated or incentivized reviews.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The five 5-star reviews share generic, non-specific praise (e.g., 'amazing,' 'highly recommend,' 'excellent customer service') with minimal job-specific detail. Two reviews from the same date (2021-05-21) further raise suspicion.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All three negative reviews are from 2022–2024, meaning the most recent customer experiences on record are negative. The positive reviews are now 3+ years old and should be weighted less heavily.
• CASH-ONLY PAYMENT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the business claimed their credit card machine was down and demanded cash only for a job quoted near $1,000. This is a known red flag for pricing transparency and business legitimacy.
• NON-SERVICE PATTERN: Two of the three negative reviews describe the business failing to provide any service at all — one due to a missed text, one due to unanswered questions — suggesting possible responsiveness or capacity issues.

This WW Score has MODERATE overall confidence and should be treated with caution — the positive review base shows signs of potential inauthenticity and is significantly outdated, while the most recent verifiable customer experiences are uniformly negative.

This contractor shows severe and consistent deficiencies in project completion and professionalism. Two detailed reviews document serious failures: incomplete work with excuses and cancellations, and a critical service failure with multiple broken promises to return and refund requests ignored. While two positive reviews praise affordability and quality workmanship, they are substantially outweighed by explicit evidence of non-completion, unreliability, and unprofessional conduct including lack of receipts and dishonest communication. The pattern of broken commitments and unresponsiveness is particularly damaging.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2021-02-25 and 2020-02-27) document severe project abandonment and non-completion with explicit evidence of broken promises and failed callbacks. These are not isolated complaints but demonstrate a pattern.
• CRITICAL: Review dated 2020-02-27 documents formal complaints filed with NYS Attorney General and BBB, with allegations of fabrications in official responses. This suggests systemic dishonesty.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2020-2021 (3+ years old). Only one review is from 2021. Current reliability cannot be assessed from this dataset.
• CONTRADICTION: Positive reviews (2020) praise quality and affordability, but negative reviews (2020-2021) document non-completion and unprofessional behavior. This suggests inconsistent service delivery or potential quality control issues.
• PAYMENT WITHOUT COMPLETION: Multiple reviews indicate payment was collected before work was finished, creating vulnerability to abandonment.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (4 reviews), but the severity and specificity of documented failures in project completion and professionalism are concerning and warrant serious consideration. The pattern of broken commitments and formal complaints suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.