Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

Apex Sewer & Drain earns strong marks across most dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising fast emergency response, courteous technicians, and fair transparent pricing that frequently came in under estimate or well below competitors. Professionalism scores are tempered by three notable failures: a no-show on a scheduled appointment (twice in one case), a rude dispatcher interaction, and an unresolved callback situation where the company stopped responding. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, with at least three reviews describing incomplete or failed work — including a technician who knowingly left broken plumbing exposed, a driveway repair that was never finished after payment, and a toilet clog that was charged $405 without resolution. Experience is generally strong based on specific technical descriptions from reviewers, but is modestly reduced by the cases where technicians either misdiagnosed or failed to solve the problem. Pricing is a genuine strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting savings versus competitors and no hidden fees.

• One review (2021-12-02, 5 stars) is suspiciously brief and generic — 'Amazing customer service. Clean. Polite. Skilled. You should stop reading reviews and hire them immediately.' — with no specifics whatsoever. Possible fake or incentivized review.
• Three separate reviews describe complete no-shows or failure to follow through after payment (2015-02-24, 2017-07-26, 2013-11-11), which is a meaningful pattern for a project completion concern.
• One review (2011-09-14) describes being charged $405 for work the technician allegedly knew would not solve the problem — a serious ethics and competence flag, though this review is over 12 years old.
• One review (2022-01-04) describes a technician breaking a component, knowingly leaving it broken, and only fixing it after being called back the next day — a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• One review (2017-11-14) alleges a prior negative review was removed from another platform, raising a minor concern about review management practices.
• The majority of reviews are from 2013–2022, with only two reviews from 2023. Recency of data is moderate; the most recent reviews (2023) are positive, but the sample is thin for the past 12 months.
• Most reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star with detailed narratives that feel authentic, but the concentration of high ratings should be read alongside the 5 reviews rated 1–2 stars that describe serious failures.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning approximately 12 years and carries HIGH overall confidence due to mention volume, but users should weigh the recurring project completion failures and no-show incidents seriously, as they represent a consistent minority pattern that meaningfully offsets the otherwise strong positive record.

A&J Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers highlighting Tim's technical skill, honesty, reasonable pricing, and responsiveness. His willingness to diagnose a problem and refer to another specialist without charging — and to substitute a better part at no extra cost — reflects both integrity and competence. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a 1-star review describing a rude phone interaction and a failure to return a promised callback, which is a direct and credible negative data point that cannot be dismissed. Project completion scores well overall, though the one review involving a referral out rather than a completed job introduces a minor caveat. Pricing and experience are the strongest dimensions, with multiple independent reviewers confirming fair rates and quality workmanship.

• One credible 1-star review (2020) describes a rude initial phone interaction and a missed callback — this directly impacts the professionalism score and should not be discounted.
• Several older reviews (2018, 2019, 2021) are more than 3 years old and carry reduced weight under recency rules; the most recent reviews (2023, 2024) are more heavily weighted.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity, which supports authenticity. However, the cluster of 5-star reviews with limited negative feedback warrants mild caution.
• Small review pool of only 7 reviews — scores carry directional confidence but should be interpreted with awareness that a few additional reviews could shift results meaningfully.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small but diverse review set spanning multiple years, with one clear negative review providing meaningful contrast to the otherwise positive feedback.

Empire State Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many customers praising technician knowledge, friendliness, and problem-solving ability. However, the company is significantly hampered by aggressive pricing practices, particularly the non-waivable $89-$129 diagnostic/dispatch fees that do not apply to work performed, and numerous complaints about high labor rates and unexpected charges. Project completion is solid overall, though several customers report incomplete fixes requiring callbacks and additional charges. Professionalism is mixed: technicians are often courteous and communicative, but the company has documented issues with scheduling reliability, no-shows, and poor responsiveness to customer concerns.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic $89-$129 diagnostic fees charged upfront and explicitly NOT credited toward work, generating substantial customer frustration across multiple reviews (2024-2025 and earlier). This is a core business model complaint, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: Multiple customers report paying for repairs that did not fully resolve issues, then being charged additional fees for 'new' problems that were actually incomplete work (e.g., 2021-08-17, 2020-02-18, 2019-04-06). At least 3 documented cases of customers obtaining second opinions that contradicted Empire's diagnosis.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: Documented no-shows (2016-02-21), late arrivals (2024-07-22 with 1+ hour delays), and appointment cancellations without notice. Pattern suggests operational inconsistency.
• LABOR RATE DISPUTES: Multiple customers report feeling overcharged for labor, with complaints about high hourly rates ($205/hour after-hours noted in 2018-12-12) and fixed-price jobs that seem disproportionate to actual time spent (e.g., 2019-04-21 claiming 1 hour work but completing in 20 minutes).
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews document technician errors causing new problems (broken parts, caused leaks, improper installations) that company then charged to fix (2019-04-06, 2016-01-12). At least one case of technician distraction (2020-02-18 on cellphone).
• ESTIMATE POLICY CONFUSION: Website advertises 'free estimates' but company charges $89-$129 for in-person inspections. Multiple customers report being misled or frustrated by this discrepancy (2022-07-22, 2024-07-16, 2024-07-15).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are overwhelmingly positive 5-star ratings with minimal detail. Older reviews (2019-2024) contain more substantive negative feedback with specific dollar amounts and detailed complaints. This temporal pattern warrants caution regarding review authenticity or selection bias.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 8 reviews from 2025-06-05 to 2025-06-07 are extremely brief (1-2 sentences), generic praise ('great job', 'awesome', 'professional'), and all 5-star with no specifics. Three reviews have no text at all but 5-star ratings. This clustering is atypical and suggests possible review manipulation.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple complaints about poor follow-up (2024-07-22 no callback after diagnostic fee), indifference to customer concerns (2016-02-21), and refusal to negotiate on errors caused by company (2019-04-06).

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to substantial review volume (75 reviews) with consistent patterns across multiple dimensions, but the score is significantly depressed by systematic pricing complaints and documented quality/follow-up issues that appear structural rather than isolated. The recent clustering of generic 5-star reviews raises concerns about review authenticity, suggesting the true score may be slightly lower. Customers should be aware that while technicians are often skilled and courteous, the company's business model (non-credited diagnostic fees, high labor rates, incomplete repairs requiring additional charges) creates substantial financial risk and customer dissatisfaction.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.