Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

Chas G. Burch demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. The business excels in expertise and technical knowledge, with reviewers consistently praising staff ability to source hard-to-find parts and provide knowledgeable guidance. Professionalism is strong, with respectful treatment and helpful counter service noted repeatedly. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with multiple reviews highlighting significant savings compared to competitors and fair labor rates. Project completion is reliable, with customers reporting successful outcomes on major renovations and special orders delivered faster than expected. The 100+ year history and family-run operation reinforce trust and long-term commitment.

• All 10 reviews are 5-star ratings except one 4-star review, which is unusually high concentration of perfect scores. However, reviews contain specific, detailed examples (ceramic disk faucet stems, gas fire log sets, pre-war faucet rebuilds, shower door installations) that suggest authenticity rather than generic praise.
• Review dates span 2013-2024 with most reviews (7 of 10) older than 3 years. Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2020. Recency is limited but does not invalidate findings.
• The 2013 review (4-star) provides critical perspective on customer service approach ('Margaret Mead, or possibly Dian Fosse') but still acknowledges expertise and long-term reliability, suggesting balanced assessment rather than fake review.
• This appears to be a plumbing supply showroom/retailer rather than a contracting/installation service. Reviews focus on product sourcing, parts availability, and counter service rather than on-site plumbing work. Score reflects retail/supply business performance.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable based on 10 detailed reviews with consistent themes across all dimensions, though the business model (retail supply vs. contracting) differs from typical plumber scoring and recency of data is moderate with most reviews 3+ years old.

NEPS Plumbing and its primary technician Rob receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism and experience being the most frequently cited strengths. Reviewers consistently highlight Rob's thoroughness, clear communication, honesty, and willingness to stay until jobs are fully resolved — including returning at no extra charge when an issue recurred. Project completion scores are strong, supported by multiple accounts of after-hours service, same-day response, and follow-through on complex repairs. Pricing scores are slightly tempered by one detailed 2-star review from 2018 citing a $200 labor charge for a sub-20-minute job, which is the only substantive negative data point across the entire review set. The bulk of reviews are recent (2025), lending strong recency weight to the high scores.

• One review (DJ KT sponsorship event, 5-star, dated 2025-05-10) does not describe any plumbing or HVAC service experience and reads as promotional/marketing content rather than a genuine customer review. It was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (dated 2025-05-10) appears to be written by another contractor or industry peer describing mentorship received, not a standard customer service experience. Scored conservatively and weighted accordingly.
• One review (dated 2025-05-10) contains no text — only a 5-star rating. This was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Several short reviews ('Great job', 'Fixed leak right', 'Great and fast service') provide minimal detail and were counted only where a dimension could be reasonably inferred (e.g., speed implies responsiveness under professionalism). Confidence is not inflated by these.
• The Don Tequila restaurant appears twice as a reviewer (2025-06-04 and 2025-06-02), with the longer review being highly detailed and promotional in tone. While not definitively fake, the overlap warrants mild caution.
• The majority of reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback aside from one 2-star review from 2018. While this pattern could suggest fake reviews, the level of specific detail, named technicians, described scenarios, and varied writing styles across most reviews suggests genuine customer experiences rather than coordinated fake reviews.
• Several reviews are older than 1 year (2016–2023). These were included but given reduced weight relative to the 2025 reviews, which form the majority of the dataset.

This WW Score is based on 32 reviews with usable data spanning 2016–2025, with a strong concentration of recent 2025 reviews, multiple dimension mentions, and sufficient detail to support HIGH confidence across all four scored dimensions — making this score reasonably reliable, with only minor caution warranted around a small number of promotional or low-detail entries.

Mr. Rooter of Saratoga receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — punctuality, courtesy, communication, and responsiveness are praised consistently across dozens of reviews. Project completion scores well, with multiple reviewers describing complex, multi-day jobs (sewer line replacement, excavation, well system repair) that were seen through to resolution, often with crews going above and beyond. Experience and technical skill are frequently highlighted, particularly in difficult diagnostic situations where other contractors had failed. Pricing scores lower due to one detailed 1-star review describing a $1,600 estimate, a demanded $800 upfront deposit, repeated lateness, abandoned work, and mutilated piping — a serious outlier that meaningfully tempers the otherwise positive pricing sentiment from other reviewers who described fair and honest pricing. That single negative review also introduces a notable project completion concern that prevents a higher score in that dimension.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (dated 2024-03-14) describes serious misconduct: repeated lateness, demanding a large upfront deposit, abandoning an incomplete job, damaging pipes and cabinetry, poor communication through a third party, and refusing to return to finish work. This review is specific, credible, and internally consistent — it should be weighted seriously despite being a single data point.
• 4 reviews contain no text at all (blank body, rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring. These provide no usable qualitative data.
• Several reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Very professional and quick', 'On time, professional, clean. 100%', 'Great work and professionalism by the team'). While not conclusively fake, they lack specifics and contribute limited signal.
• The review corpus spans from 2020 to 2025. Reviews from 2020 and 2021 (2 reviews) are more than 3 years old and were given reduced weight. The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and are considered current.
• No clear fake review pattern detected — named technicians (Eric, Tyler, John, Chris, Josh, Jamie) appear across multiple independent reviews with varied and specific details, suggesting authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with strong recency and good specificity across most dimensions, and is considered moderately reliable — however, the single detailed negative review describing abandoned work and property damage is a meaningful red flag that prospective customers should read in full before hiring.

All Trades Plumbing and Construction earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism and experience being the most consistently praised attributes across a large volume of reviews. Responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication are mentioned repeatedly and credibly across dozens of independent reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with several reviewers specifically noting upfront quotes and competitive rates. Project completion scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by one detailed, credible 1-star review in which a customer reported a leaking repair that was not honored after months of follow-up attempts — a significant callback failure that directly contradicts the otherwise positive pattern. The experience dimension is well-supported, with many reviewers citing technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship across a variety of plumbing tasks.

• One serious negative review (August 2024) describes a confirmed callback failure: a sink repair began leaking 6 months post-installation, and the contractor stopped responding after initially acknowledging the issue. This is a material flag for project completion and warranty follow-through.
• Approximately 8-10 reviews contain no substantive text (e.g., 'N/a', 'none', 'Nothing', 'A+A+', 'Very good', 'Excellent very satisfying experience') and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A moderate number of reviews are generic in phrasing (e.g., 'Very professional. Would not hesitate to hire them again.') with no job-specific detail. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the pattern slightly reduces confidence in the upper end of the professionalism score.
• The majority of reviews (roughly 70+) are dated prior to 2024, meaning recent performance data is limited to a small number of reviews. The most recent negative review (August 2024) is the most current data point and should be weighted accordingly.
• No clear evidence of coordinated fake review activity was detected — reviews vary in length, detail, writing style, and rating. The volume and specificity of many reviews support authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should note the unresolved callback complaint from 2024 as a meaningful risk signal regarding warranty and follow-through on completed work.

McDonald Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, courteous technicians, and responsive communication across 78 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished as promised, though 5 reviews document significant failures (leaks, incomplete work, follow-up issues) that lower this dimension. Experience and technical skill are well-regarded with 45 mentions of knowledgeable, efficient work. Pricing presents a mixed picture: while many customers praise fair rates and value, 6 reviews cite overcharging, hidden fees, or surprise emergency surcharges, creating pricing inconsistency. The company excels at responsiveness and emergency service but shows occasional quality control gaps.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 10 reviews contain only generic text ('unknown', '.', 'went well', 'great') with no substantive detail. All rated 5.0 and dated 2014-2016. These appear to be placeholder or auto-generated entries and reduce confidence in older data.
• CRITICAL QUALITY FAILURES: Two detailed 1-star reviews (Jan 2021, both identical text) document defective faucet installation causing water damage, mold, and poor customer service response. One 1-star review (May 2015) describes broken pipe during installation, flooding, and inadequate compensation. One 1-star review (Dec 2011) alleges deliberate over-billing on small jobs. These are not isolated complaints.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Six reviews mention surprise charges, emergency surcharges not fully disclosed upfront, lack of itemized bills, or perceived overcharging. One review (Aug 2021) documents $775 for vanity install with trainee labor and no itemized receipt. Another (May 2011) reports credit inquiry placed without consent.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Three reviews document missed appointments or no-shows (May 2018, Oct 2014, Feb 2018). One review (Oct 2014) states owner forgot customer conversation 18 hours later.
• RECENCY BIAS MITIGATED: 45 reviews from past 12 months (June 2024-June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with detailed praise. Older reviews (2006-2014) show more critical feedback. Recent data heavily favors the company.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION: Project Completion score of 81.5 reflects 5 documented major failures (leaks, incomplete work, damage) among 62 mentions. This is material and prevents higher scoring despite majority positive reviews.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for recent service (past 12 months) where data is abundant and detailed, but should be treated cautiously for long-term reliability assessment due to documented quality failures in project completion, pricing transparency issues, and 10 suspicious placeholder reviews in the 2014-2016 period. The company demonstrates strong professionalism and responsiveness but has a documented history of installation defects and customer service failures that warrant careful consideration.

B&B Plumbing and Heating earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence — particularly from technician Ryan and the HVAC crew of Adam and Matt. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by two credible negative reviews describing rude technicians and a dismissive management response to a billing dispute. Project completion is similarly strong but is meaningfully penalized by a 2-star review of a malfunctioning Combi boiler that stumped technicians across multiple visits, a 1-star review alleging three failed attempts to complete a job and damage caused by their work, and a vague but emphatic 1-star review calling the experience 'a nightmare from start to finish.' Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting fair or below-market quotes, though one reviewer felt they received poor value for a $600 pipe job. Experience scores are solid overall but are pulled down by older reviews citing incorrect installations and technicians struggling with instructions, which — while dated — represent genuine documented failures.

• Three reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating of 5.0 on 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10, and 2024-10-12). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several very short reviews ('Great Service!!', 'Ryan is super, keep him forever!', 'very professional and clean job', 'On time, done professionally.', 'Very professional service. Thank you.') provide minimal specifics. While not conclusively fake, they add limited evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• The review corpus spans from 2017 to 2025. Negative reviews describing incompetent installations and billing disputes date from 2018–2022. While these are older, they describe serious failures (incorrect humidifier sizing, shower valve disaster, unresolved boiler issues, billing dispute with no apology) and were not fully discounted — they were weighted less than recent reviews but still factored into scoring.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 38 of 48) are from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), which is a positive recency signal. However, the concentration of 5-star reviews with no negative feedback in recent months warrants mild caution — it is possible some dissatisfied recent customers did not leave reviews.
• No clear fake review patterns detected. Most positive reviews include specific technician names, job types, and situational details, which is a strong authenticity signal. The presence of multiple 1-star and 2-star reviews also supports overall corpus authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a large, well-distributed, and largely authentic review set spanning multiple years, and can be considered moderately reliable — though prospective customers should note that credible negative reviews describe recurring issues with job completion, billing disputes, and occasional rude technicians that the high volume of positive reviews should not fully obscure.