Find Nearby Plumbers In Freeport, New York

Peter Gerardi & Son Plumbing & Heating receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions based on six reviews. Professionalism is the most frequently and enthusiastically cited quality, with every reviewer commenting on punctuality, courtesy, patience, and clear communication. Experience and technical competence are also well-supported, with reviewers noting effective problem-solving, knowledgeable advice beyond the immediate job, and follow-up care. Pricing is mentioned positively in four reviews, with customers describing costs as fair and transparent with no hidden charges or runaround. Project completion scores are solid, with jobs described as finished thoroughly and on time, though the small review pool limits full confidence in the overall picture.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied language that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are older than 12 months. The most recent review is from September 2019 and the oldest is from June 2013. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• Small sample size of only 6 reviews limits statistical reliability. Scores should be interpreted with caution until more recent and numerous reviews are available.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to consistently detailed and specific reviewer feedback, but is significantly limited by the small sample size of 6 reviews and the fact that all reviews are more than 4 years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current quality of service.

Hot Water Plus demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is a clear strength, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and knowledgeable technicians who explain their work thoroughly. Project completion is solid, with customers reporting successful resolution of hot water issues and satisfaction with the service delivery. Pricing is perceived as fair and reasonable, though fewer reviews explicitly address cost. Experience and technical skill are well-documented, with customers impressed by the quality of workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, all reviews are significantly dated (2011–2018), which limits confidence in current performance.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: All 10 reviews are from 2011–2018. No reviews from the past 5+ years. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• One review contains only 'unknown' as text with no usable data (excluded from analysis).
• Possible pattern of generic praise: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'very satisfied,' 'great job') and all are 5-star ratings with minimal critical detail. This may suggest selection bias or review curation rather than fake reviews, but limits ability to identify weaknesses.
• Limited sample size (9 usable reviews) reduces statistical reliability despite high mention counts within those reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias—all reviews predate 2019, making them unreliable indicators of current performance. While the score of 87.2 reflects strong historical performance, it cannot be trusted to represent present-day service quality without recent customer feedback.

Rainbow Plumbing and Larry Washington receive overwhelmingly positive feedback on professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, courteous communication, and responsiveness — including multiple after-hours and emergency calls handled same day. Experience and workmanship are also broadly praised, with specific callouts for diagnosing complex problems, going above and beyond, and doing jobs right the first time. However, pricing is a mixed signal: while many reviewers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, several explicitly note charges felt high, one review cites $200/hr labor, one flags overcharging on a warranty job, and one reviewer lost over $500 on an incomplete job. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — at least three reviews describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, unresolved callbacks, or a significant misdiagnosis that led to ongoing flooding damage, which meaningfully pulls this score down. The overall picture is a contractor with strong core skills and service ethic but a pattern of serious failures in a minority of cases.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-06-09 and the review dated 2018-03-22 are nearly word-for-word identical (tankless heating system review). One appears to be a re-post or copied entry. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-06-09 (emergency at 7pm, resolved by 9pm, early flight next day) and the review dated 2023-08-29 are nearly identical in content and phrasing. These appear to be the same event posted twice or a fabricated duplicate. Only one instance was counted.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW: The 1-star review dated 2011-07-11 contains language that reads positively ('attentive and professional', 'does the work right the first time', 'meticulous', 'fair prices') yet was submitted as a 1-star rating. This is internally inconsistent and may reflect a data entry error, a misassigned rating, or a manipulated review. It was excluded from scoring calculations.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 35+) are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2006–2018. The most recent negative reviews (2025, 2020) raise concerns about consistency of quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily by the consumer.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROJECT COMPLETION: At least 3 reviews describe serious failures: a misdiagnosis causing ongoing flooding (2025), an incomplete job with no callback and $500 loss (2020), and a renovation where work was left unfinished, warranty was not honored, and leaks persisted for 6+ months (2013). These are not minor complaints and meaningfully reduce the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING: Multiple reviews across different years flag pricing as higher than expected or unfair, including one citing $200/hr labor charges and one citing overcharging on a warranty repair. This prevents a high pricing score despite the majority of reviewers finding prices acceptable.
• 5 reviews contained no usable text (blank entries or 'unknown' or 'see above') and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the recent negative reviews heavily — particularly the 2025 misdiagnosis and 2020 incomplete job — as these suggest quality consistency issues that the overall positive score may obscure.

Acme Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence across a large number of technicians including Anthony, Norval, Alejandro, Clay, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25 across the full dataset — raise serious concerns across all four dimensions: the owner (Ed) is repeatedly cited for rude behavior, threatening customers with lawsuits over billing disputes, and hanging up on clients; pricing transparency is a recurring problem with multiple reviewers describing hidden fees, undisclosed per-plumber hourly charges, and feeling overcharged; and project completion failures include abandoned jobs, missed callbacks, work left unfinished, and at least one instance of work done without required permits. The technician-level work is generally rated well, but owner/management conduct meaningfully drags down professionalism and pricing scores. Recency of reviews (2024-2025) shows continued strong positive feedback but also continued negative incidents, suggesting these issues are not fully resolved.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Super Bowl Sunday' review featuring Norval Cunningham appears verbatim twice — once dated 2024-02-12 and once dated 2024-06-09. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The billing dispute review describing charges of $678 vs. agreed $372 and threats of lawsuit appears nearly verbatim twice — once dated 2021-06-10 and once dated 2020-09-16. Counted only once for scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 (approximately 20+ reviews) share the same date with no timestamps, many are very short and generic ('Professional service', 'Great friendly and fast service', 'Outstanding work'), and several are blank 5-star submissions. This pattern is consistent with a bulk review import or solicitation campaign. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-18 reviews contain no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• OWNER CONDUCT — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2024, 2025) describe the owner (Ed) as rude, threatening legal action over billing disputes, hanging up on customers, and failing to honor service commitments. This is a persistent and credible pattern.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews describe undisclosed fees, surprise charges, or feeling significantly overcharged. One reviewer documented a $303 estimate that became $344.74 with an undisclosed service fee added. Another described being charged $678 when $372 was agreed. This materially reduces the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION — NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews describe work left unfinished, missed follow-up appointments with no notice, or jobs requiring a second plumber to correct Acme's work. One review describes work done without required permits.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2019-2025, which were weighted more heavily. Reviews from 2004-2013 were included but given reduced weight due to age and potential changes in company ownership or staffing over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews reference Monterey/Salinas, CA locations while others reference Durham, NC. This may represent two different Acme Plumbing franchises or locations. Scores reflect the combined dataset as provided, but users should be aware the reviews may not all pertain to a single business entity.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 total, ~130 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to: a cluster of same-day generic reviews suggesting possible solicitation, confirmed duplicate reviews, persistent owner-conduct complaints across many years, and possible geographic mixing of two different business locations.

Proactive Home Services earns strong praise across the majority of reviews for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians — particularly Ted, Danny, and Mike — with many long-term repeat customers citing consistent professionalism over years of service. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 10–12 reviews, spanning 2016–2024) describes serious failures: unresponsive ownership after payment, a boiler installed incorrectly for a two-zone home, abandoned warranty obligations, a safety incident involving disassembled dryer ducts left on the floor, and a pattern of the owner becoming hostile when customers escalated complaints. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable by satisfied customers, but several negative reviewers allege being overcharged or upsold unnecessarily. Project completion is the most polarized dimension — most jobs are described as completed efficiently, but the negative reviews document specific cases of incomplete work, failed callbacks, and unresolved warranty disputes that meaningfully drag the score down. The overall picture is a company with genuine strengths in day-to-day service delivery but documented systemic failures in accountability, post-payment responsiveness, and quality control on complex installations.

• 13 reviews contain no text at all (blank, 'unknown', '.', or '...') and were rated 5 stars — these provide no usable data and inflate the raw star average without supporting evidence of quality.
• A large cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 (approximately 20+ reviews) share the same date, many are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Very professional from start to finish.', 'Great job! Appreciate!!', 'excellent, professional, punctual service'), which raises a moderate concern about review authenticity or a coordinated review solicitation campaign on a single day.
• Two nearly identical 1-star reviews were submitted on 2024-04-01 by what appears to be the same customer describing the same boiler installation dispute — counted as one unique incident but submitted twice, possibly to amplify visibility.
• Two nearly identical 1-star reviews dated 2022-05-11 and 2022-05-12 appear to be the same customer submitting the same complaint twice — counted as one unique incident.
• One 1-star review (2022-05-31) appears to be from a parts vendor disputing a chargeback rather than a home services customer — this review was excluded from scoring as it does not reflect contractor service quality.
• One 1-star review (2017-08-09) states only 'Didn't hire them' — excluded from scoring as it contains no usable service data.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive negative reviews are from 2016–2024, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. The most recent negative reviews (2024) describe the same patterns of post-payment unresponsiveness seen in older complaints, suggesting the issues have not been resolved over time.
• The owner (Mike) is specifically named in multiple negative reviews as becoming hostile, making implied threats, and refusing to honor warranties — this is a significant flag for customer safety and business integrity that goes beyond typical service complaints.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (95 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the mathematical confidence high; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because a documented pattern of post-payment unresponsiveness, warranty refusals, and owner misconduct in negative reviews — combined with a suspicious cluster of same-day generic 5-star reviews — suggests the true service reliability may be lower than the score reflects for customers who encounter problems.

All County Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who frequently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly technicians — with multiple reviewers citing them as their go-to plumber for years. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: repeated no-shows and failure to follow through on scheduled appointments, at least one instance of faulty workmanship causing water damage to hardwood floors, a complaint about upselling unnecessary work, and a complaint about opaque emergency pricing practices. Pricing feedback is mixed — several reviewers praised fair or below-estimate billing, while others found the company very expensive for minor work. The volume of blank or content-free 5-star reviews (9 reviews with no text) slightly inflates the apparent rating and reduces confidence in the raw star average. The most recent substantive reviews (2020–2025) are generally positive but thin, making it difficult to assess current performance with high certainty.

• 9 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• 2 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (same text about a missed appointment window, one dated 2020 and one dated 2018), suggesting a possible copy-paste error or duplicate submission. Treated as a single incident for scoring purposes.
• 2 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (same text about calling ACP for a quick assessment, one dated 2020 and one dated 2018). Treated as a single incident.
• Several generic 5-star reviews contain only 1–2 sentences with no specific details (e.g., 'Amazing!!', 'Great team and great people', 'Awesome service!'). These were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• One review (1-star, 2012) alleges the company fabricated a code violation to upsell an unnecessary $900 job — a serious integrity concern that was verified by a second licensed plumber and inspector.
• One review (1-star, 2021) describes significant property damage (hardwood floor and carpet) caused by improper installation of an overflow drain — a serious workmanship failure.
• One review (1-star, 2018) describes opaque emergency upcharge pricing with no estimate provided upfront — a transparency concern.
• One review (1-star, 2022) describes being referred to a dishonest affiliated company — a business practice concern.
• The majority of reviews are older than 3 years. Only 3 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (2024–2025), and only 1 of those contains substantive text. Current performance cannot be assessed with high confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews date from 2018–2020. Only one review from 2025 and one from 2022 contain usable content. Scores are weighted toward the larger historical dataset.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is reduced by a significant number of blank reviews, two sets of duplicate reviews, several vague generic reviews, a sparse recent review record, and a recurring pattern of no-show and follow-through failures that represent a systemic — not isolated — concern.