Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

Armstrong Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviews praising friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name across many years of service. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished promptly and correctly, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, repeat callbacks for the same issue, no-shows, and at least one case of a job abandoned mid-project. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension in the review set — numerous reviewers explicitly describe being quoted 2x to 4x competitor prices, receiving unexplained charges, or feeling overcharged for simple jobs, and this pattern is consistent across multiple years and locations. While many satisfied customers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, the volume and specificity of pricing complaints is too substantial to ignore and pulls the price-friendly score well below average.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates in early June 2025 (e.g., 'Both gentlemen from Armstrong Plumbing made the job I had been putting off easy...' and 'The staff is very friendly, and the job was done perfectly!' each appear twice within 2 days, and 'Window was 8-12, tech showed up at 1.' and 'Carlos from Armstrong Plumbing was most professional...' also appear duplicated). These duplicates were counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation.
• REVIEW SOLICITATION FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states Armstrong 'bombards you with requests for online reviews, even after you already submit one,' which may artificially inflate review volume and skew the overall rating distribution toward 5 stars.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC: At least 18 reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overpricing, with several providing direct competitor comparisons showing Armstrong quotes 2x to 4x higher (e.g., $1,795 vs $450 competitor, $2,500 vs $800 competitor, $67,000 vs $19,000 competitor for re-pipe). This is not isolated and materially impacts the pricing dimension score.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows with no communication, including one reviewer who describes three consecutive no-shows over a month. This pattern negatively impacts both professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2019 and earlier carry reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021 onward, and the most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a broadly positive but still mixed pattern consistent with the longer-term record.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES NOTED: Several reviews describe jobs that were not fixed correctly on the first visit, required multiple callbacks, or resulted in damage (e.g., ceiling collapse, flooded pantry, persistent leaks after repair). These are factored into the project completion score.
• AI SYSTEM FLAG: One reviewer specifically complained about Armstrong using AI for scheduling, which may affect the authenticity of some communication-related positive mentions.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on the pricing dimension specifically, where the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints across many independent reviewers represents a consistent and credible pattern that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.

Reimer's technicians consistently receive strong praise for professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and clear communication, with dozens of named technicians highlighted positively across recent reviews. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple independent reviewers across different years report quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, high-pressure upselling tactics, and charges for work not completed, dragging the pricing dimension down substantially. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but there are notable failures including an abandoned drain job, a sump pump system that failed within four years, and a case where a wrong furnace model was installed without disclosure. Experience scores well overall due to frequent mentions of knowledgeable diagnostics and skilled workmanship, but is tempered by multiple credible accounts of technicians falsely diagnosing problems to drive unnecessary equipment sales.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant block of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 appear to be near-exact or exact duplicates of one another (e.g., the Kenny K drain emergency review, the Derrick filter review, the Kenny sewer jetting review, the Scott furnace tuneup review, and others appear verbatim on multiple dates). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or artificial inflation. Confidence in the recent review cluster is reduced.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — CREDIBLE AND RECURRING: At least 10 independent reviewers across multiple years (2013–2025) describe technicians recommending unnecessary furnace or AC replacements, with second opinions from other companies confirming the existing equipment was functional. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers cite quotes 2x–4x higher than competitors for identical work, including a $15,000 furnace/AC quote vs. a $500 repair, a $6,500 plumbing quote vs. a $1,700 competitor quote, and a $500+ sewer snake vs. $160 elsewhere. These are not vague complaints but detailed, comparable figures.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (August 2024) alleges that employees stole high-value liquor from the customer's home during a water heater installation, and that the supervisor initially agreed to replace items but later cancelled the order. This is a serious integrity flag.
• TECHNICIAN MISCONDUCT: One review (February 2024) describes a technician arriving 2.5 hours late, refusing to perform the scheduled service, aggressively upselling, and becoming verbally abusive and belligerent when asked to leave — requiring the customer to threaten police involvement.
• WRONG PRODUCT INSTALLED WITHOUT DISCLOSURE: One reviewer (2019) reports that Reimer installed a lower-tier furnace model than what was sold, and concealed this until after installation was complete.
• MANY BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25–30 entries contain no review text, only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and may artificially inflate the star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive positive reviews are dated May–June 2025, with the duplicate cluster noted above. Negative reviews span 2013–2024 and represent a longer historical pattern. The recent positive surge warrants scrutiny given the duplication flags.

The WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating recent positive signals, a well-documented and multi-year pattern of aggressive upselling and inflated pricing, and serious individual misconduct allegations that suggest inconsistent service quality depending on which technician is dispatched.

Plumbing Today has a strong base of recent (2024–2025) positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence from named technicians like Ed, Jesse, Carson, and Tim. However, a meaningful cluster of older negative reviews (2016–2022) describes serious concerns including hidden fees, warranty refusal, incomplete work, unprofessional conduct, and pricing disputes — some involving vulnerable customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, bait-and-switch estimates, and undisclosed service call fees, which significantly drags down that score. Project completion is mixed: many recent jobs were finished well, but older reviews document abandoned trenches, unresolved callbacks, and rescheduling failures. The overall score reflects a company that appears to have improved in recent years but carries a documented history of serious service failures.

• 19 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2025 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great company!', 'Fast, great service', 'Good service') with no specifics. These were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• Multiple older reviews (2016–2022) describe a pattern of bait-and-switch pricing, undisclosed fees, and warranty denial — suggesting systemic issues that may or may not have been resolved.
• One review (2017) alleges predatory pricing targeting an elderly couple and describes work that was technically incorrect for the system type — a serious workmanship flag.
• One review (2021) describes a month-long unresolved callback, an open trench left in a yard, and broken landscaping — a significant project completion failure.
• One review (2021) alleges employees disclosed private customer information to third parties — an ethical and trust concern outside standard scoring dimensions.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2024–2025, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2016–2022. This suggests possible improvement over time, but the older negative reviews are too serious to discount entirely.
• The review from 2019 describing repeated communication failures and a job being farmed out without notice is consistent with the pattern seen in other negative reviews from that era.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with usable content spanning 2015–2025 and carries HIGH confidence due to volume, but consumers should weigh the serious and specific negative reviews from 2016–2022 carefully, as they describe patterns — not isolated incidents — that meaningfully offset the strong recent positive trend.

Joe demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for communication, punctuality, and knowledgeable problem-solving. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and fair. However, project completion is a significant concern: one detailed 1-star review explicitly states the job was not finished and required two additional contractors to complete, while most positive reviews do not explicitly confirm full project completion. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects solid performance in professionalism and experience, but is tempered by limited evidence of reliable project completion and the presence of at least one serious failure case.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 8 reviews are from 2017-2019 (5+ years old). Only 1 review from 2019. No recent data to assess current performance.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: One 1-star review (2018-02-14) explicitly states the job was abandoned and required hiring 2 additional contractors to finish. This is a critical failure that significantly impacts the project completion score.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW BIAS: 7 of 8 reviews are 5-star ratings. The single 1-star review is acknowledged by another reviewer as 'the one and only poor review,' suggesting possible review suppression or selective posting. This pattern warrants caution.
• LIMITED COMPLETION EVIDENCE: Most positive reviews do not explicitly state that projects were fully completed or that callbacks were honored. Absence of complaint is not confirmation of completion.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant data age (5+ years), a critical project failure documented in one review, and potential review selection bias. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting signals: strong professionalism and expertise scores are undermined by documented project completion failure and lack of recent performance data.

Mark's plumbing service shows strong execution on completed projects and fair pricing, with multiple customers praising quality workmanship and value. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by one detailed negative review documenting poor scheduling responsiveness, flakiness, and communication failures—issues that directly contradict the positive reviews' claims of quick response and reliability. The score reflects this mixed profile: excellent project outcomes and pricing when work is secured, but concerning gaps in initial customer communication and commitment reliability that create risk.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2018 (5+ years old). Only one review from 2021. Limited recent data to assess current service quality.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Positive reviews emphasize quick response and reliability; one detailed negative review documents opposite behavior (non-responsive to phone, flaky scheduling, last-minute cancellations). This contradiction suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential selection bias in positive reviews.
• PROFESSIONALISM SCORE DEPRESSED: The single detailed negative review carries significant weight on professionalism due to explicit documentation of communication and scheduling failures. This pulls the dimension score down despite two positive mentions.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review from past 3 years), conflicting customer experiences regarding responsiveness, and a small sample size (4 reviews). The WW Score reflects a contractor with strong execution capability but documented scheduling and communication vulnerabilities that warrant direct verification before engagement.

M&R Plumbing shows mixed performance across a small sample of 3 reviews. Positive feedback emphasizes knowledgeable technicians, friendly demeanor, and quality workmanship, with one customer reporting 3 years of satisfied service. However, a critical pricing complaint alleges inflated estimates and unfavorable quote structures. Project completion appears solid based on satisfied customer outcomes. All dimensions are supported by limited mention counts (1–2 reviews each), resulting in conservative confidence levels and a moderate overall WW Score of 78.3.

• Very small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more reviews before making major business decisions
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 negative review; insufficient data to confirm pricing pattern
• Two 5-star reviews are positive but lack specific technical detail; one is generic praise without concrete examples
• Recency is good: all reviews from Feb–Jun 2024 (within past 12 months)

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directional only; the small sample size and limited mention counts across all dimensions mean confidence is constrained, and additional reviews are needed to validate these findings.