Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

Revenge Plumbing scores strongly across all four measured dimensions based on six reviews spanning 2022 to 2024. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with every reviewer explicitly noting courteous, friendly, and responsive behavior — including same-day or next-day service even in difficult circumstances such as holidays and snowstorms. Project completion is equally strong, with all jobs described as fully resolved, often in a single visit or with a prompt follow-up callback. Experience is well-supported, with reviewers noting quick diagnosis, correct repairs, and knowledgeable guidance such as advising customers on cost-saving options. Pricing receives a moderate score — one reviewer noted the bill felt potentially high, and another paid travel costs, though both still rated the value positively — resulting in a conservative but reasonable score for that dimension.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever. While the reviews do contain specific details and named technicians (Dave, Matt, Mel, Will, Kevin), the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• Review volume is low (6 reviews total). Scores are directionally reliable but should be treated as preliminary until more reviews are available.
• Two reviews are from 2022, which are now over 2 years old. More recent reviews (2023–2024) are consistent in tone, but the older reviews carry slightly reduced weight per recency rules.
• No negative or mixed reviews are present in this dataset. It is unknown whether this reflects genuine service quality or a non-representative sample.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the presence of specific details, named technicians, and varied scenarios across reviews, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size of only 6 reviews and the absence of any critical feedback.

Phil O'Brien of PTO Home Services earns strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising his punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor across a large volume of reviews spanning nearly a decade. His technical skill and problem-solving ability are consistently highlighted, including creative solutions to complex plumbing challenges, earning a high experience score. Pricing is generally regarded as fair to very reasonable, with multiple reviewers noting his quotes came in well below competitors, though one reviewer flagged a flat-rate charge as high and another noted prices were slightly elevated in hindsight. The project completion score is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern: at least five separate reviewers across multiple years reported that Phil scheduled follow-up work, then stopped responding entirely — ghosting customers after initial jobs were completed. This pattern is the single most significant negative signal in the dataset and prevents a higher overall WW Score.

• RECURRING ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews (2014-02-06, 2015-09-01, 2016-10-11, 2018-01-18, 2020-04-27) explicitly describe Phil scheduling follow-up appointments or return visits and then going completely silent — not returning calls, texts, or messages. This is a consistent and serious reliability concern that spans the full review history.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Two additional reviews (2013-06-12, 2013-03-19) note difficulty getting Phil to return calls or provide estimates, suggesting a broader pattern of communication breakdown beyond just follow-up visits.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only 2 reviews dated within the past 24 months (2022-10-12 and 2020-11-24). The most recent negative review (2020-04-27) describes a no-show and ghosting incident. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• ONE UNINFORMATIVE REVIEW: The review dated 2013-02-11 contains no usable content ('PLease see above/ I typed all of my information in the box above') and was excluded from scoring.
• ONE NON-SERVICE REVIEW: The review dated 2014-11-05 describes Phil declining the job due to service area limitations and is not reflective of work quality; it was excluded from dimension scoring.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many reviews are positive, they contain sufficient specificity, varied language, and unique job details to appear genuine. No coordinated fake review pattern was identified.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (101) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weight the project completion score heavily given the documented and repeated pattern of Phil failing to return for scheduled follow-up work — a risk that is well-evidenced and spans multiple years.

Summit Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, the company shows significant variability in project completion reliability, with numerous reports of missed appointments, poor follow-up communication, and delayed estimates that substantially impact overall trustworthiness. Pricing feedback is mixed—while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, a notable segment reports unexpectedly high charges and lack of transparency in fee structures. The company excels when actively engaged but struggles with administrative consistency and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Appointment no-show pattern detected across multiple reviews spanning 2016-2025. At least 12 distinct reviews report missed appointments, failed callbacks, or scheduling failures with no communication. This is a systemic operational issue.
• CRITICAL: Follow-up communication failures documented repeatedly. Multiple customers report being unable to obtain promised estimates, callbacks, or status updates despite multiple contact attempts over weeks.
• Pricing transparency concerns: Several reviews (2024, 2022, 2011) report unexpectedly high charges, lack of itemization, and disputes over service fees. One customer paid ~$600 for <1 hour faucet installation; another charged $100+ for 10-15 minute furnace inspection.
• Quality control inconsistency: A few reviews report incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, reversed water lines, and contamination (oil/gas in toilet tank). These suggest occasional lapses in technical execution or quality assurance.
• Home warranty company friction: Multiple reviews indicate problems when company is assigned via home warranty—billing disputes, authorization issues, and poor coordination with warranty providers.
• Recency note: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) show continued appointment/communication issues, indicating problems persist despite company's long history.
• Positive review clustering: Approximately 60% of reviews are 5-star with generic praise; however, these are distributed across genuine specific details (names, job types, timelines), reducing fake review suspicion. The 1-2 star reviews are highly specific and credible, suggesting real operational failures rather than review manipulation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism when actively engaged, the high frequency of appointment failures, communication breakdowns, and follow-up issues across a 9-year review span indicates serious operational reliability problems that directly contradict the positive dimension scores. Customers should expect quality work but should prepare for scheduling frustration and verify all commitments in writing.

E.W. Tompkins demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous staff across 38 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 22 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion reliability is undermined by multiple documented instances of cancelled appointments, failure to follow up on bids, and abandoned jobs, lowering that dimension to 74. Pricing receives moderate support (76) with most reviews citing fair or competitive rates, though some older reviews cite price increases and one customer reported dissatisfaction with service call costs. The company's recent performance (past 12 months) is substantially stronger than historical reviews from 2018-2020, which contain serious allegations including retaliation and unprofessional conduct.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 38 of 56 reviews are 5-star ratings with minimal variation in positive language. Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('friendly, professional, courteous,' 'on time,' 'fair price'). Three reviews contain no text content. This clustering of generic praise with zero critical detail is atypical of authentic review distributions.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: A detailed 2018 review alleges owner Cathy Marsh engaged in retaliatory behavior across multiple platforms (Facebook, Google, Yelp, direct email to reviewer's employer) after receiving a 1-star review. Reviewer claims Marsh attempted to have them fired. This is a significant red flag regarding business ethics and professionalism at ownership level.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2018-2020) document cancelled appointments, failure to show up, failure to provide quotes, and backing out of jobs. One review states the company 'cancelled TWO appointments' and 'backed out of the job altogether.' Another reports 'never showed up for an appointment' and 'didn't even have record of me making the appointment.'
• RECENCY BIAS: 45 of 56 reviews (80%) are dated 2024-2025 (past 12 months), while negative reviews cluster in 2018-2020. This temporal distribution suggests either significant business improvement or potential review manipulation. The stark contrast warrants caution.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: One 2018 review documents a technician who refused to work on Kohler products, damaged fixtures, and the company failed to respond or offer reimbursement. This suggests inconsistent quality standards and poor complaint resolution.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document failure to return calls, emails, or provide quotes despite initial contact. One 2024 review states: 'Phone calls and emails later they have not gotten back to me at all.'

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive and suggest strong current performance in professionalism and expertise, the suspicious clustering of generic 5-star reviews, documented appointment cancellations and no-shows in historical records, serious allegations of retaliatory conduct by ownership, and stark temporal divergence between recent and older reviews indicate potential review manipulation or significant but undocumented business changes. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects recent performance but does not fully account for the credibility concerns raised by the review pattern and historical conduct issues. Prospective customers should independently verify current service reliability and request references from recent projects.

Long Energy demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive, courteous staff and technicians across 48 mentions, earning an 82.5 score. Project completion is solid at 81.0 across 35 mentions, with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored. Technical experience scores 80.5 across 32 mentions, reflecting skilled diagnostics and workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness at 58.0 across 12 mentions, with multiple customers reporting excessive markups (400-500% on parts), high compliance/delivery fees, unfavorable contract terms, and aggressive billing practices. The company's overall WW Score of 76.8 reflects strong service delivery undermined by pricing concerns and occasional customer service failures.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024-09-12, 2021-09-30, 2024-06-09 x2, 2020-11-06, 2021-01-14) report excessive parts markups (400-500% vs. stated 100% average), high compliance fees exceeding product cost, unfavorable 5-year contract lock-ins with early termination penalties, and refusal to credit unused propane in tanks. This pattern suggests systemic pricing practices that disadvantage customers.
• BILLING & CONTRACT DISPUTES: Multiple customers (2024-11-11, 2021-01-14, 2024-06-09) report unauthorized automatic fill deliveries, contract enforcement issues, court action over disputed fees, and refusal to honor customer requests to remove automatic payment. One customer reported suspected forged contract signatures.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Review from 2016-08-08 describes deceptive diagnostic practices (recommending expensive repairs that failed to resolve issue; minimal refund offered). Review from 2024-04-10 describes misdiagnosis requiring second opinion from external HVAC professional. Review from 2006-08-02 notes inconsistent technician quality depending on who is assigned.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Review from 2018-05-07 reports no callback on emergency Sunday call. Review from 2024-06-09 describes rude, dismissive technician behavior and refusal to investigate propane leak properly.
• GENERIC/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain only ratings with no text or minimal text ('...', '.', 'Thanks!', 'Great job....', blank). These provide no substantive data but do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: 38 of 95 reviews (40%) are from 2024-2025, providing strong recent data. However, 20 reviews are from 2017 or earlier (21%), which may reflect outdated service standards. Most negative reviews cluster in 2024 and 2021, suggesting ongoing issues rather than historical problems.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 95 reviews with HIGH overall confidence. The score accurately reflects a company with genuinely strong professionalism and project completion but materially undermined by documented pricing practices and billing disputes that affect customer satisfaction and long-term retention. The pricing weakness is not speculative—it is explicitly detailed across multiple independent reviews with specific dollar amounts and percentages.

Pete the Plumber and associated operators (The Plumbing God, Bill, Mark, and others) earn strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and respectful conduct in the home. However, pricing is a recurring concern across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, with customers citing high hourly rates, unexpected truck charges, and costs that felt disproportionate to the work performed — this meaningfully drags the pricing score down. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and promptly, but there are several credible negative reviews describing incomplete work, return visits needed, and at least two cases where jobs were left unresolved or made worse. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, but is tempered by a handful of serious complaints about faulty installations and misdiagnoses that required correction by other plumbers.

• 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews from the 2024–2025 period use the nickname 'The Plumbing God' (Bill) while others reference 'Pete the Plumber' as a separate entity or team. It is unclear whether these are the same business or co-listed entities. This may inflate review volume and conflate two distinct service providers.
• One review (2025-05-01, 1-star) appears to be about a parking lot dispute unrelated to plumbing services. It was excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a professionalism flag.
• Pricing complaints are consistent and span multiple years (2014–2024), suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents. At least 7 independent reviewers explicitly flagged pricing as high or unfair.
• At least 5 negative reviews describe serious project completion failures: work not completed, leaks returning immediately after repair, a PRV installed incorrectly at 100 psi, a pressure tank left leaking and made worse on return visit, and a drain job that required a second company to redo.
• One negative review (2023-09-05) alleges the contractor became verbally abusive after a complaint. Another (2024-01-18) alleges the contractor threatened to send someone with COVID to the reviewer's home. These are serious conduct flags.
• One review (2023-12-15) alleges the contractor may not hold a valid Michigan plumbing license and stopped communicating when asked for a license number. This is an unverified but serious flag.
• Recency note: A significant portion of detailed reviews are from 2014–2018. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are present, many are text-free ratings. The most detailed and critical reviews span the full date range, suggesting long-standing mixed performance.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, though some short generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great work', 'Did great work', 'Great company!') lack specifics. These were scored conservatively or excluded from dimension counts.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, 138 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints, multiple credible project completion failures, and serious conduct allegations before hiring.