Find Nearby Plumbers In Hempstead, New York

Pride Plumbing scores strongly across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising technician communication, punctuality, cleanliness, and thoroughness across a range of job types. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers consistently noting jobs were finished on time, within promised windows, and with clean workspaces left behind. Experience is backed by positive mentions of technical skill on diverse jobs including gas line installation, pipe replacement in a 1938 home, water heater work, and leak repairs. Pricing is the weakest dimension — one reviewer explicitly called the cost 'high' and a 1-star reviewer described nearly $800 for valve work as 'way overpriced,' which meaningfully drags the pricing score down despite one reviewer noting a 'great price.' Recency is generally good, with the majority of reviews from 2021 onward and two from mid-2024.

• One 1-star review (2021-11-01) directly contradicts a response from the business, alleging the business misrepresented what the customer's husband said. This suggests a possible dispute over a business reply and warrants caution.
• Pricing concerns appear in at least two reviews: one reviewer noted pricing 'seemed high' (4-star, 2024) and one reviewer explicitly called the pricing 'way overpriced' for the work performed (1-star, 2021). This is a consistent signal, not an outlier.
• Two reviews (2021-11-15 and 2020-08-25) are brief and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they are not flagged as definitively fake.
• Three reviews are from 2021 or earlier (2020–2021), which are now 3–4+ years old. More recent 2024 reviews are present and were weighted more heavily, but the older reviews still influence the dataset.
• No clear fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with strong dimension coverage across professionalism, project completion, and experience, yielding HIGH confidence in those areas; however, the pricing score carries only MODERATE confidence and reflects a genuine mixed signal that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.

Lynbrook Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and reliable project completion across 101 reviews. The company excels in technical expertise and workmanship quality, with staff frequently praised for politeness, punctuality, and responsiveness. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing high labor charges, unexpected fees, and disputes over service costs. While the majority of reviews are highly positive (predominantly 5-star ratings from 2006-2025), several serious negative incidents—including a dangerous driving complaint, unprofessional behavior toward customers, and incomplete repairs requiring costly callbacks—temper the overall score. The company's strength in emergency response and follow-up service is evident, but pricing transparency and consistency in quality control remain areas of concern.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from 2023-06-10 and 2020-06-10 show suspiciously generic or minimal text ('Best ever', blank review, single word reviews like 'professionally'). These lack specificity and detail typical of genuine reviews.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: Review dated 2025-01-10 reports a company driver ran a red light at dangerous speed, injuring a child and dog. Owner allegedly dismissed the complaint. This is a critical professionalism and liability issue.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Review dated 2015-06-12 alleges the owner (Phil) harassed a competitor's employee, screaming and spitting on them. Review dated 2015-05-07 describes rude, dismissive phone behavior from staff.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2021-07-23, 2014-08-12, 2013-01-21) report incomplete repairs, duct tape fixes, holes punched in ceilings, and refusal to warranty prior work. One customer paid $328 for a gasket that didn't fix the leak and was later charged $1,000 for a proper fix.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCY CONCERN: Review dated 2015-05-05 from a licensed plumber states a technician (Miguel) failed a gas pressure test that National Grid later identified as a serious gas leak. This is a safety-critical failure.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite high costs ($120 for plaster, $200 for a simple leak, $328 for a gasket, $1,000 for a follow-up repair). One customer noted 'pricing could always be better' despite otherwise good service.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2019-2023, with a cluster of suspicious minimal reviews from 2020-2023. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) show both extreme positive (5-star) and extreme negative (1-star) ratings, suggesting polarized customer experiences.
• DANGEROUS DOG INCIDENT: Review dated 2024-06-09 reports customer was barked at profusely by a dangerous pit bull on business premises, creating a safety hazard and unprofessional environment.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuinely strong performance in professionalism, completion, and experience across a large sample (101 reviews), the presence of fake/minimal reviews, serious safety incidents (dangerous driving, gas leak), unprofessional owner conduct, and multiple pricing disputes significantly undermines confidence. The company demonstrates competence in routine work but exhibits inconsistency in quality control, pricing transparency, and professional conduct. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates, verify warranty terms, and consider the documented safety and behavioral concerns before engaging this contractor.

Big City Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically cited quality — every single review mentions punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, or courteous behavior. Project completion is also a standout, with multiple reviewers specifically noting that Big City succeeded where prior contractors had failed, including emergency callbacks honored on New Year's Eve and same-day follow-through. Experience and technical skill are well-documented, particularly around Navien combi boiler systems, with reviewers describing knowledgeable diagnostics and clean, efficient workmanship. Pricing transparency is mentioned positively in three reviews, with the owner Mike noted for being upfront about costs and budget options, though this dimension has fewer data points than the others. The overall picture is of a highly reliable, skilled, and customer-focused operation, though the relatively small review pool and age of several reviews temper full confidence.

• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild scrutiny, though the reviews contain specific names, job details, and unique narratives that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review recency concern: 4 of 7 reviews are older than 3 years (2013, 2016, 2018, 2020), and only 1 review falls within the past 12 months (July 2023). The most recent data point is limited, so current performance cannot be fully confirmed.
• One review (2016) is very brief and generic ('top-notch', 'above and beyond') with no specific details — treat with slightly lower evidentiary weight.
• The service area appears to have changed over time — one reviewer (2021) notes Big City no longer serves Brooklyn, which may affect relevance depending on the customer's location.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — the reviews are largely specific and credible, but the small sample size of 7 reviews, the predominance of older reviews, and the absence of any critical feedback limit the confidence with which this score can be applied to current performance.

All 7 reviews consistently praise punctuality, responsiveness, and polite communication, driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting the job was done efficiently and that results were filed with the water district on the customer's behalf — a meaningful follow-through detail. Technical competence is affirmed across several reviews, with customers noting clear explanations and thorough work. Pricing receives only two explicit mentions and is therefore treated conservatively despite positive framing. The overall picture is of a reliable, customer-focused backflow testing specialist.

• Two reviews (2023-10-06 and 2023-04-16) share nearly identical phrasing: 'Quick appointments and filed all documents for me for annual Backflow testing.' This is a potential indicator of templated or inauthentic reviews and has been noted as a mild concern.
• The majority of reviews (5 out of 7) are older than 12 months, with the most recent substantive detail coming from 2023. Recency of feedback is limited.
• Total review count is low (7 reviews), which limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores regardless of confidence labels.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the consistent positive themes across most reviews are credible, but the small sample size, two potentially templated reviews, and limited recency mean the score should be treated as a reasonable directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment.

OSI Comfort Specialists has a strong and well-documented track record of professionalism, responsiveness, and emergency availability across decades of customer reviews, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, courteous staff, and reliable service. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning billing disputes, unskilled technicians sent to wrong job types, incomplete work, and rude management interactions — prevents a top-tier score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers cite fair or competitive pricing, multiple credible negative reviews describe unexplained charges, inflated bills, and pricing practices that were not transparent or were applied inconsistently. Project completion scores are solid overall but are dragged down by several specific incidents where jobs were not completed correctly the first time, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition than before service. The experience dimension reflects generally skilled technicians but is tempered by documented cases of technicians being sent to jobs outside their expertise and at least one case of a maintenance job being billed but not actually performed.

• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40+) are dated between 2006 and 2015, making them 10–19 years old. These older reviews carry reduced weight in the scoring. The most recent reviews (2022–2025) show a more mixed picture than the older reviews, which were predominantly positive.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2023-06-10 and 2017-05-22 contain only a period ('.') or are completely blank with a 5-star rating. These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated entries and were excluded from scoring. Additionally, several reviews from 2006-01-30 share identical formatting (all-caps) and generic praise with no specifics, suggesting possible bulk submission.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent negative reviews (2023-10-18, 2024-01-17, 2024-06-09, 2013-06-03) specifically cite rude or dismissive behavior from ownership/management (referenced as Mr. Levy or Michael Levi), including being told to 'go somewhere else,' failure to return calls, and defensive responses to legitimate complaints. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY FLAG: At least 4 credible reviews (2022-06-10, 2015-09-09, 2017-09-29, 2019-07-23) describe charges that were not explained, not itemized when requested, or applied inconsistently — including charging an 85-year-old woman $231 for 5 lightbulbs and refusing to break down a $355 bill. This pattern meaningfully suppresses the pricing score.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE FLAG: One detailed 2024-02-13 review describes a maintenance job (flush with chemicals) that was billed but apparently never performed, resulting in pitch-black water discovered months later by a separate plumber. This is a serious quality and integrity concern that suppresses both the experience and project completion scores.
• UNKNOWN/BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contained only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5-star ratings. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to the volume of detailed, credible negative reviews describing systemic issues (billing, management conduct, incomplete work), scores have been held conservative rather than inflated by the large volume of positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted with caution given documented patterns of billing disputes, management conduct issues, and a notable decline in service quality noted by long-term customers in more recent reviews — the most recent 3 years of reviews show a meaningfully higher rate of negative experiences than the historical average.

Pro Mechanical Plumbing, led by Howard (Howie) Linzer, earns strong marks across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with dozens of reviewers praising his punctuality, responsiveness, cleanliness, and ability to handle both routine and complex plumbing and heating jobs. His follow-up calls after service and willingness to respond to late-night and weekend emergencies are repeatedly highlighted as standout qualities. However, pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers describe his rates as fair and reasonable, five separate reviewers — including two with 1-star ratings and one with a 3-star rating — explicitly warn of grossly inflated charges, sticker shock, and a lack of upfront pricing transparency. This pricing concern is significant enough to materially drag down the overall score and cannot be dismissed as isolated. The volume and consistency of positive reviews across other dimensions support a genuinely skilled and professional operator, but prospective customers should insist on a written quote before any work begins.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Five reviewers (1-star x2, 2-star x1, 3-star x1, and one 1-star no-show complaint) explicitly flagged overcharging, lack of upfront pricing, or sticker shock. Two of these use nearly identical language about Howard's 'fast because I'm prepared' justification, suggesting this is a recurring pattern and not an isolated incident.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE COMPLAINT: Two separate reviews (2024-06-09 and 2024-05-20) describe the same 'fast because I'm prepared' quote from Howard and accuse him of gross overcharging. These may be from the same person or two different customers who had the same experience — either way, the pattern is credible and notable.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING INCIDENT: One reviewer (2018-12-08) reported Howard cancelled 3 minutes before a confirmed appointment and then proposed charging $180 for future estimates, citing the reviewer's 'scheduling issues' despite Howard being the one who cancelled.
• 3 BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. A small number of reviews date back to 2014–2018 and were given reduced weight.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: While most reviews are positive and some use similar praise language, the specificity of details (job types, dates, named individuals, locations) across the majority of reviews reduces the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews. No flag raised for fabrication, but the volume of generic 5-star praise warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with usable content spanning 2014–2025, with strong recency weighting; the score is considered moderately reliable overall, but the pricing dimension carries meaningful negative signal from multiple credible complainants and prospective customers should treat the pricing score with particular caution.