Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

Professionalism scores reasonably well across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for friendliness, punctuality, and responsiveness — Matt in particular is noted for showing up on time and returning calls promptly. However, communication and prioritization issues were flagged in at least one review, preventing a higher score. Project completion is mixed: several jobs were completed successfully, but one review explicitly identified workmanship defects (improper pitch on shower floor, trap set too low) that should have been caught during the job, indicating inconsistent quality control. Pricing drew a split response — one reviewer found the price competitive, while two others described the contractor as 'a bit pricey,' and one raised a concern about use of minimum-code materials without offering an upgrade option. Experience is generally positive given the contractor's long tenure and repeat customers, but the technical errors noted in the 2013 shower pan review temper confidence in consistent workmanship quality.

• One review has unknown text and only a 5-star rating — this review was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• Most reviews are from 2012–2014, with only one from 2016. All reviews are more than 8 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current performance.
• Review volume is very low (7 usable reviews), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• No reviews from the past 12 months were present, so recency weighting could not be applied in favor of any dimension.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 7 usable reviews, all of which are over 8 years old, making it a poor indicator of the contractor's current quality or reliability.

Crisafulli Bros. presents a deeply mixed picture across a large review base. On the positive side, the majority of individual technicians are praised for professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical knowledge — with many named technicians (Arron, Hunter, Matt S., Ryan, Dennis, Eric, etc.) receiving strong commendations. However, a significant and recurring cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — reveals serious systemic problems: repeated failed repairs requiring 10–15+ return visits, poor emergency responsiveness despite 24/7 advertising, incomplete project delivery, and work that was actively harmful (asbestos dust exposure, incorrect installations, sabotaged systems). Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous detailed complaints about price gouging, hidden trip charges, non-itemized invoices, and charges far exceeding market rates — offset only partially by a smaller number of customers who found pricing fair or reasonable. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing abandoned work, unresolved issues lasting months or years, and installations that required complete replacement by other companies.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A full block of 15 reviews dated 2025-06-08 appears to be an exact duplicate of a block dated 2025-06-06, and a near-identical block appears again dated 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-07. The reviews 'Swift and Efficient.', 'Hunter and Yuvi replaced my domestic water main valve...', the long Aleyjiah review, the 14-visits negative review, 'Ryan was fantastic...', 'very professional, no issues', the Doug generator review, and the Arron Lamphere reviews all appear 3-4 times with identical text and different dates. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication. Scores have been calculated treating each unique review text as a single data point to avoid inflating positive sentiment.
• MULTIPLE BLANK REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: At least 12 distinct reviews across multiple years (2021–2024) describe nearly identical experiences of excessive charges, non-itemized invoices, undisclosed trip fees, and refusal to provide cost breakdowns. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURE PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe being denied emergency service despite the company advertising 24/7 availability, including cases involving infants in cold homes and active flooding. This is a serious and recurring operational failure.
• INCOMPLETE/FAILED INSTALLATION PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe major installations (HVAC systems, dual-zone systems, boilers) that failed to function correctly and required extensive remediation by other companies, with Crisafulli allegedly becoming unresponsive when issues arose.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2018 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive, but the negative reviews from 2022–2024 are detailed, specific, and credible. The positive 2025 reviews include the suspected duplicates, which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The exact duplication of review blocks across multiple dates is highly anomalous and suggests either a platform data error or deliberate review padding. Confidence in the positive score direction has been moderated accordingly.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate review patterns inflating positive signals, a persistent and credible pattern of pricing complaints, emergency service failures, and incomplete project delivery documented across multiple years.

Apollo Heating presents a deeply polarized review profile. Recent reviews from 2024–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians and timely service, which drives the professionalism and experience scores upward. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2009–2021) documents serious and recurring concerns: price gouging on parts (markups of 5–10x retail), failure to honor service agreements, missed appointments without notice, rude office staff, and incomplete or botched repairs requiring multiple callbacks. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the review history, with multiple reviewers independently verifying that parts were charged at dramatically inflated rates. Project completion suffers from documented patterns of abandoned service contracts, no-shows, and repeat visits for the same unresolved issues.

• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The most recent 40+ reviews (2024–2025) are almost exclusively 5-star with no negative feedback, while reviews from 2009–2021 contain numerous detailed 1-star complaints. This sharp bifurcation may reflect genuine operational improvement, but it may also reflect selective review solicitation from satisfied customers.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR SOLICITED REVIEWS: Several recent 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Andrew did a great job', 'Job well done!', 'Very good service.', 'Excellent job, very happy.') with no specific details. These lack the specificity expected of organic reviews and may be solicited or incentivized.
• PRICING CONCERNS — MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT REPORTS: At least 8 separate reviewers independently documented parts being charged at 3–10x their retail or market price. This is a strong and consistent signal, not isolated complaints.
• SERVICE AGREEMENT FAILURES: Multiple reviewers across different years reported paying for service contracts that were never fulfilled, appointments that were missed without notice, and refusals to refund prepaid services. This is a recurring operational pattern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACKS: Several reviews document technicians breaking equipment during service visits, failing to bring correct parts, and requiring multiple return visits to resolve the same issue — sometimes unsuccessfully.
• UNPROFESSIONAL OFFICE STAFF: Multiple reviews cite rude, dismissive, or unresponsive office and management staff, including one account of a manager making a racist accusation and hanging up on a customer.
• 4 reviews had no text content and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2009–2021 are weighted less heavily in scoring due to age, but their volume and specificity are significant enough to materially reduce scores, particularly for pricing and project completion.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the stark split between recent glowing reviews and a substantial history of detailed, credible negative experiences — particularly around pricing transparency and service agreement fulfillment.

Mike receives strong praise from many customers for his technical skill, responsiveness, and honest approach to pricing, with several reviewers noting he solved problems others could not. However, there are meaningful negative reviews that cannot be dismissed: one customer reported a failed repair with no callback honored, one described Mike hanging up on them and abandoning an appointment, one noted lateness with no communication, and one detailed possible equipment damage to a toilet with disputed accountability. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, with documented incidents of rudeness, poor communication, and no-shows pulling the score down significantly. Project completion is also penalized due to at least one clear case of a job that did not hold and a refusal to return. The majority of reviews are from 2013–2019, with only one review from 2021, meaning recent performance data is very thin.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from the past 3 years (2021). The bulk of reviews span 2012–2019. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROFESSIONALISM: At least two reviews document serious unprofessional behavior including hanging up on a customer mid-call and abandoning a scheduled appointment without notice.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROJECT COMPLETION: One review explicitly states the job failed within a week and Mike refused to return to honor the callback, requiring the customer to hire another plumber at higher cost.
• CASH-ONLY / NO RECEIPT FLAG: One reviewer noted Mike requested $100 cash with no receipt issued, which raises transparency and accountability concerns.
• POSSIBLE EQUIPMENT DAMAGE: One reviewer reported a cracked toilet bowl following Mike's work, which Mike denied causing. While unconfirmed, this is a notable complaint.
• LATENESS PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention Mike arriving significantly later than agreed, with inconsistent communication about delays.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary meaningfully in tone, detail, and rating, including credible negative reviews. No coordinated fake review behavior suspected.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable volume of reviews with substantive detail, but is significantly limited by the age of most reviews and the presence of multiple credible, specific negative experiences that indicate real service inconsistencies.

Metro has a mixed but generally positive historical record, with multiple reviewers praising prompt response times, clean workmanship, fair pricing, and skilled tradespeople across plumbing and HVAC work. The standout positive includes a reviewer noting a plumber returned immediately to fix a small leak at no apparent extra charge, reflecting strong follow-through. However, a serious 1-star review from 2016 alleges sexual harassment by a worker, repeated hang-ups when the complaint was escalated, rudeness, incompetence, and overpricing — this single review significantly drags down professionalism and pricing scores and cannot be ignored. The vast majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with only one review from the past 12 months (2024), limiting confidence in how well these scores reflect current operations. Additionally, a note in one review indicates the company shifted to commercial-only work at some point, raising questions about the relevance of residential reviews to current service offerings.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (2016) explicitly alleges a sexual remark made by a worker toward a customer, and claims the company hung up on the customer's husband multiple times when a complaint was filed. This is a significant professionalism and conduct red flag that materially lowers the professionalism score.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 12 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024). The majority of reviews are from 2010–2016, making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.
• BUSINESS MODEL CHANGE: One review notes Metro stopped doing residential work and moved to commercial plumbing and heating only. It is unclear whether the 2024 review reflects a return to residential service or an exception. Consumers should verify current service scope before hiring.
• GENERIC/LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Several reviews (e.g., 'Everything was great. They were very good.' and 'unknown') provide little to no actionable detail, reducing their scoring utility. The 'unknown' review was excluded from usable data.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to the age of most reviews, the serious misconduct allegation, and the business model uncertainty, scores have been kept conservative rather than inflated.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while there are enough mentions across dimensions to generate scores, the data is heavily dated (most reviews are 8–14 years old), a serious unresolved misconduct allegation exists, and only one recent review is available, making it inadvisable to rely on this score alone when making a hiring decision.

Claverack Pump Service exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. Positive reviews (13 five-star ratings) consistently praise technical expertise, responsiveness, and integrity in problem-solving, with customers highlighting competitive pricing and quality workmanship. However, four one-star reviews reveal serious ethical concerns: alleged misdiagnosis to sell unnecessary services, failure to complete required inspection items, negligent work (broken well cap not replaced), and unprofessional communication including hanging up on customers. The most damaging allegations involve deliberately providing false water flow estimates and well condition assessments to justify expensive new well installations. While technical competence is evident in positive reviews, the pattern of complaints suggests inconsistent quality control, potential conflicts of interest in sales recommendations, and poor accountability when issues arise.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2024-09-23, 2024-09-18, 2017-07-27) allege deliberate misdiagnosis or incomplete work to sell additional services—potential fraud pattern requiring investigation
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Two separate incidents of hanging up on customers (2024-09-18 'Rick hung up on me'; 2014-07-03 'Al hung up on me') suggest systemic communication problems
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERN: Inconsistent inspection practices documented—young employee unable to locate well, failed to use proper flow meter, did not wait for well recovery (2017-07-27)
• ACCOUNTABILITY GAP: Owner non-responsiveness to complaints documented in multiple reviews; customer escalations appear to be ignored
• RECENCY MATTERS: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2013-2018); most recent reviews (2024) are all one-star with serious allegations; this suggests deterioration in service quality or accountability
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK: Positive reviews show some generic phrasing ('great folks,' 'highly recommend') but are sufficiently detailed and specific to appear authentic; negative reviews are highly detailed with specific names, dates, and technical details suggesting credibility

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the WW Score of 68.2 reflects the mathematical average of mixed data, the extreme polarization (13 five-star vs. 4 one-star with no middle ratings) and recency pattern (recent reviews are uniformly negative with serious allegations) suggest the company's current reliability is significantly lower than the overall score indicates. The allegations of deliberate misdiagnosis to drive sales, combined with documented unprofessional communication and owner non-responsiveness, represent material risks that outweigh the positive historical reviews. Potential customers should heavily weight the 2024 reviews and consider independent verification before engaging this company.