Find Nearby Plumbers In Freeport, New York

AJS Plumbing and Heating scores very strongly on professionalism, with all 7 reviews explicitly praising responsiveness, communication, punctuality, courtesy, and cleanliness — a consistent and credible signal. Project completion and experience are also well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs done correctly the first time, efficient work, and technical competence across plumbing, heating, and renovation scopes. Pricing is mentioned positively in 3 reviews as reasonable or fair, earning a solid but moderately confident score. The overall picture is of a reliable, customer-focused contractor, though the small review pool and age of most reviews temper full confidence in the WW Score.

• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific names, job details, and varied language that reduces the likelihood of fabrication.
• Only 1 review falls within the past 12 months (August 2022); 4 reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with 2 from 2017. The score may not reflect current performance accurately.
• Small sample size of 7 reviews limits statistical reliability. Confidence factors are capped accordingly in the WW Score calculation.
• Two reviews (2017) are over 5 years old and were given reduced implicit weight in narrative assessment, though they were included in scoring due to consistent positive signals.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the reviews are specific and credible enough to avoid fake review concerns, but the very small sample size and predominantly older review dates mean the score should be treated as a directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment of current performance.

Heavy Doody Rooter demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and respectful demeanor. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of reliable follow-through on multi-day work and emergency responsiveness. Experience/workmanship is evidenced by quality pipe replacement and effective clog resolution. Pricing receives limited mention but is described as reasonable in one review. The small sample size (3 reviews) and lack of specific dates limit confidence, though the consistency of positive feedback across different job types (residential and commercial) is encouraging.

• Sample size is very small (n=3); score should be considered preliminary and updated as more reviews accumulate
• No review dates provided; cannot assess recency or whether feedback is current
• Review 3 contains generic language ('don't have any complaints') with minimal specifics, reducing its evidentiary weight slightly
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention; insufficient data for reliable pricing assessment

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only. With only 3 reviews and no date information, confidence is moderate at best. The score is likely directionally accurate but should be updated and reassessed once 8+ reviews with usable data are available.

Ben demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledge, consistently praised for problem-solving ability and professionalism in appearance and demeanor. Pricing is characterized as fair and reasonable across multiple reviews. However, a critical no-show incident in 2018 significantly impacts project completion reliability, where the contractor forgot an appointment and failed to communicate. The majority of reviews are older than 3 years (4 of 6 from 2016–2021), limiting recency validation. Overall, the score reflects strong capabilities offset by a serious reliability concern.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 67% of reviews are older than 3 years (2016–2019). Only 2 reviews from 2020 onward. Current reliability cannot be fully assessed.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: One 1-star review documents a no-show with no communication and admission of forgetting the appointment. This directly contradicts claims of professionalism and reliability in other reviews.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical confidence. A single negative review carries disproportionate weight.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention 'Ben' by name and use similar praise language ('fantastic,' 'professional,' 'knowledgeable'). While not definitively fake, the consistency warrants caution.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant age of most reviews, and one documented failure incident that contradicts the otherwise positive narrative. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about current performance reliability.

Tumminello Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with 8 reviews explicitly citing high costs, overcharges, or poor value—including complaints about unnecessary upsells and inflated service call fees. Project completion is inconsistent: while many jobs are completed successfully, several reviews document unresolved issues requiring multiple callbacks or ultimately failing (phantom flushing toilet, heating system failure within 3 months). The company demonstrates genuine expertise in complex systems but struggles with fair pricing and follow-through on difficult repairs.

• PRICING PATTERN: 8 of 13 reviews mention pricing concerns. Multiple customers describe charges as 'ridiculous,' 'extravagant,' 'rip-off,' or 'excessive.' This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 3 reviews document incomplete repairs: phantom flushing toilet required 3 visits and $363 with no resolution; heating system failed within 3 months despite $2000 installation; heating system installed 3 years ago has required annual repairs.
• RECENCY BIAS: 5 of 13 reviews are from 2019 or earlier (6+ years old). More recent reviews (2023-2024) show a polarized pattern: either 5-star praise or 1-star complaints with no middle ground. This suggests possible service quality inconsistency or different technician performance.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 2024-10-09 5-star review uses unusually elaborate language ('rocket scientist for NASA,' 'rockstar,' extensive technical detail) and reads as promotional. However, it contains specific technical details and named individuals, so confidence in this flag is limited.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Reviews name different technicians (Mike, Matt, Paul, Bill, Nick, Joe, Dominic, Mark). Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned—some receive universal praise, others generate complaints.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the dataset is adequate in size (13 reviews), the company shows extreme polarization: recent reviews are either 5-star or 1-star with no middle ground, and pricing complaints are nearly universal (8/13 mentions). The WW Score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and expertise offset by consistent pricing concerns and documented project completion failures. Customers should expect professional service but should carefully negotiate pricing upfront and verify warranty coverage before committing to major installations.

Reliable Plumbing and Heating has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians — especially Jerry — for professionalism, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out affordability and honesty. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by several serious negative reviews: one documents incomplete drywall work after a shower installation that created a mold risk, one describes clock-riding, rude behavior, and floor damage, and one describes a no-show after a confirmed appointment. A 2015 review also noted significant rescheduling delays. These failures in project completion and professionalism are credible and specific, and they cannot be ignored simply because they are outnumbered. The recency spread is also a concern — many positive reviews lack dates entirely, making it impossible to confirm whether the high praise reflects current performance.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant number of 5-star reviews lack dates entirely (approximately 19 out of 31 reviews have no date). This is unusual and reduces confidence in the authenticity and recency of the positive review pool.
• REPETITIVE LANGUAGE FLAG: Multiple undated 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing such as 'very professional and reliable,' 'would definitely hire again,' and 'highly recommend Jerry.' While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent dated negative review is from October 2024 and describes incomplete work with serious consequences (potential mold from missing drywall). This is the most recent dated review in the dataset and carries elevated weight.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least two reviews describe incomplete or abandoned work — one involving missing drywall after a shower install, and one describing a no-show after a confirmed appointment. These are specific, credible, and serious.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: Most dated positive reviews are from 2018–2024, but the majority of undated reviews cannot be placed in time. If many undated reviews are old, the recent negative trend may be more significant than the overall ratio suggests.
• SINGLE REVIEW — 'unknown' content: One review with a 3-star rating and text 'unknown' was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is reasonable and multiple dimensions have HIGH mention counts, but the large proportion of undated reviews, detectable repetitive phrasing in 5-star reviews, and at least two specific and credible negative reviews (including the most recent dated review) introduce enough uncertainty that this score should be treated as a cautious estimate rather than a definitive quality rating.

Polo Plumbing receives strong praise from the majority of reviewers for professionalism, punctuality, and pleasant staff, with multiple reviews specifically highlighting on-time arrivals and courteous personnel. However, one highly detailed and updated negative review significantly drags down scores across all dimensions, describing repeated failed repairs on the same job, rude and combative office staff, and a refusal to take responsibility — all of which are serious red flags for professionalism and project completion. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with several reviewers noting competitive and fair costs, and one reviewer highlighting that Polo saved them thousands compared to other estimates. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to the documented case of a tub repair failing twice after two paid visits, with the problem still unresolved. Experience scores moderately well given several examples of smart, cost-saving diagnoses, but is tempered by the evidence of recurring workmanship failures in the negative review.

• One highly detailed 1-star review with multiple updates describes a pattern of failed repairs, poor follow-through, and aggressive office staff behavior — this review carries significant weight as it is specific, consistent, and corroborated by the reviewer's own follow-up updates.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great service. Fair Prices. Excellent staff.'), which raises mild concern about authenticity, though most 5-star reviews do include some specifics.
• The majority of reviews are dated 2019 or earlier, with the most recent being from 2019. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date) are present, meaning current service quality is unknown and scores should be treated with caution.
• One 2015 review mentions delayed refunds and poor call responsiveness, suggesting communication issues may be a recurring pattern rather than an isolated incident.
• The negative review's secretary/receptionist complaints are partially contradicted by positive reviews praising the receptionist — however, the negative review is far more detailed and specific, lending it greater credibility.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while there are enough reviews to calculate a score, the data is entirely older than 12 months, one heavily detailed negative review meaningfully offsets the cluster of positive ones, and several brief 5-star reviews lack sufficient specificity to be fully trusted.