Find Nearby Plumbers In Hempstead, New York

Sal Manzo Plumbing receives a below-average WW Score of 48.2, driven primarily by severe pricing concerns that dominate customer feedback. While the company demonstrates technical competence and occasional professionalism (particularly with certain technicians like Billy, Matt, and Chris), systematic overcharging is the defining complaint across 35 reviews. Customers consistently report labor rates 3–10x market rates for simple jobs (e.g., $704 for 15-minute faucet replacement, $754 to unclog a toilet, $595 to install a $35 cartridge). Professionalism is inconsistent: some reviews praise punctuality and courtesy, but many cite late arrivals, poor communication, unprofessional attitudes, and failure to follow up on callbacks. Project completion shows mixed results, with some emergency responses praised but others marred by incomplete diagnostics, cleanup failures, and unresolved issues requiring callbacks.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 35 of 50 reviews explicitly cite excessive pricing as a primary complaint. Customers report being charged 3–10x what competitors charge for identical work. This is not isolated—it is systemic and the dominant theme.
• INCONSISTENT PROFESSIONALISM: While 5–6 reviews praise specific technicians (Billy, Matt, Chris, Joe, Kurt, Donald), approximately 15 reviews report rude behavior, poor attitudes, lack of communication, and dismissive responses to customer concerns.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020, 2015, 2017) document failure to return calls, provide quotes, or honor callbacks. One customer waited weeks for a quote that never arrived.
• INCOMPLETE DIAGNOSTICS: At least 3 reviews document technicians missing problems during initial assessment, then charging additional fees for repairs they should have identified (e.g., 2014 burst pipe review, 2015 kitchen flood review).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: While some reviews praise workmanship, others report substandard work (crooked valve installation, loud toilet still making noise after repair, boiler room flooding after 'bleeding' service, toilet running continuously after work).
• RECENCY BIAS MITIGATED: Reviews span 2014–2024. Negative reviews are distributed across all years, with no improvement trend. Recent reviews (2023–2024) show identical pricing complaints as older reviews.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS APPEAR GENUINE: The 5-star reviews (approximately 12) contain specific details (technician names, equipment models, emergency response times, extra services provided) and do not show repetitive phrasing. These appear authentic and suggest the company CAN deliver quality work—but at premium prices.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe initial low estimates that balloon dramatically (e.g., $109 estimate becomes $956 with discount; $49 diagnostic fee leads to $569 cartridge replacement quote). This suggests deliberate underquoting followed by upselling.

This WW Score of 48.2 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 18–35 mentions each). The company demonstrates genuine technical capability and occasional excellent service, but is fundamentally undermined by systematic overpricing that affects the vast majority of customers. The score accurately reflects a business model centered on high-margin service calls rather than fair-value customer relationships. Customers seeking quality work should expect to pay 2–3x market rates; those seeking fair pricing should avoid this company entirely.

Aardvark's reviews present a deeply divided picture, with strong positive experiences offset by serious, recurring failures. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple accounts of technicians arriving without tools, leaving abruptly, failing to return calls or texts, and showing up hours late or not at all — despite a handful of reviews praising punctuality and courteous behavior. Project completion is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly describe abandoned jobs, broken promises on return visits, and an inability to reach the company for follow-up on completed installs, including one account of a botched oil-to-gas conversion requiring a full reinstall by another contractor. Pricing drew mixed signals — one reviewer found the cost steep for a simple faucet replacement, another alleged unnecessary upselling, while a third accepted the price as fair given the outcome. Experience scores reflect a similar split, with some reviewers praising fast and accurate diagnostics while others questioned whether the lead technician was even licensed.

• Multiple reviews describe the same pattern of no-show or late-show behavior across different years (2015, 2016, 2018), suggesting a systemic reliability problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer (2018) explicitly questions whether Eric Monahan holds a valid plumbing license — this is a serious flag that was not contradicted by any other review.
• The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are heavily concentrated in 2014–2015 and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent reviews (2016, 2018) skew negative.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2014 and 2018. No reviews from the past several years are present. This score should be treated as a historical snapshot only and may not reflect the contractor's current operations.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and rating, and negative reviews include specific names, dates, and incident descriptions consistent with authentic experiences.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable review count and high mention density across most dimensions, but is significantly limited by the age of all reviews (none more recent than 2018) and the presence of serious unresolved allegations including potential unlicensed work and job abandonment.

This contractor shows extreme polarization across reviews. Two highly positive reviews (from 2019 and 2021) praise technical expertise, fair pricing, and ethical practices, while one recent 2022 review documents severe professionalism failures: a no-show appointment, delayed communication, and unresponsiveness to customer calls. The technical skill and pricing appear strong, but the professionalism dimension is severely compromised by the documented failure to show up and communicate. The recency of the negative review (2022) versus older positive reviews raises concerns about potential service degradation.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2021; the most recent review (2022) is highly negative, suggesting possible service quality decline.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Ratings range from 1-star to 5-star with no middle ground, indicating inconsistent service delivery.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits statistical reliability; confidence across all dimensions is LIMITED.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2019 review uses generic praise ('king of smile the guy has on their website') and the 2019 review contains suspiciously generic language ('reliable, trustworthy, reasonable') with no specific details, though not conclusive with only 3 reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews), extreme rating polarization, and recency concerns showing a negative trend; the 2022 no-show incident directly contradicts claims of 24/7 availability and reliability from older reviews.

Minutemen Plumbing scores extremely poorly across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, credible negative reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing is the single most-cited concern, with numerous reviewers documenting specific instances of price gouging, bait-and-switch quoting, and charges that were 2x to 5x competitor estimates — this dimension scores the lowest of all four. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude technicians, a service rep hanging up on a customer, a technician calling a customer a profanity, yelling at customers for seeking multiple estimates, and failure to return calls. Project completion is also deeply problematic, with multiple reviewers reporting that paid work was not completed, problems recurred within days or weeks, and the company refused to honor its stated warranty. Experience scores marginally higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising specific technicians, but is undermined by accounts of misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and work that made problems worse.

• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: At least 12 reviews independently describe charges that were significantly higher than competitor quotes, with specific dollar amounts cited. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 6) describe the company refusing to honor its stated 30-day guarantee or failing to return calls after payment was collected. This is a systemic issue.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: Multiple reviews describe prices changing after arrival or after work began, including one detailed account of a job escalating from ~$1,700 to $2,900.
• TECHNICIAN MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviews cite specific named technicians (Chris H., Bill, Lincoln) engaging in high-pressure sales tactics, refusing to do work, or behaving rudely. One technician called a customer a profanity.
• POSSIBLE FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Great company to do business with'). These contrast sharply with the highly detailed negative reviews and may inflate the positive signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024, 2023) continue to reflect the same pricing and professionalism complaints seen in reviews from 2016-2020, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• OWNER RESPONSE CONCERN: One review references the owner posting lies in response to a complaint, and another references a social media representative stealing a customer's identity to post comments — these are serious integrity red flags if accurate.
• REVIEW SPAN: Reviews cover 2015–2024. Negative patterns are consistent across the entire 9-year window, which significantly increases the reliability of the negative signal.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative assessment; the score reflects a contractor with serious, well-documented, and recurring issues in pricing transparency, warranty follow-through, and professional conduct.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile across only 3 reviews. Professionalism is split: field technicians are consistently described as nice and personable, but the owner is explicitly called out in two separate reviews for poor customer service and indifference to quality. Pricing is a significant red flag, with two of three reviews directly criticizing the cost as excessive or unfair, and only one review describing pricing as fair. Project completion is uncertain — one review describes a job well handled, while another explicitly states a crooked sink installation was refused to be corrected, indicating a failure to stand behind completed work. Experience scores low due to the reported quality issue with the sink installation, though one reviewer noted skilled problem-solving to minimize tile damage.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and unreliable for decision-making.
• Two of three reviews are older than 12 months (2019 and 2017); only one review is recent (2024). The most recent review is the most negative and should carry the most weight.
• A clear pattern emerges distinguishing field technicians (rated positively) from the owner/business operator (rated negatively in 2 of 3 reviews). This suggests a systemic issue at the ownership level.
• The 2024 review explicitly describes a defective installation (crooked sink) that the owner refused to remedy — this is a serious project completion and professionalism failure.
• Pricing complaints appear in 2 of 3 reviews independently and with specific detail, suggesting a genuine and consistent overcharging concern rather than isolated dissatisfaction.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7 years, with the majority of data being outdated, making it insufficient to draw confident conclusions — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

Orchid's review profile is heavily polarized. The three positive reviews praise competitive pricing, solid workmanship on sewer and water main replacements, and thorough site cleanup, suggesting genuine competence when jobs are accepted and completed. However, the majority of reviews describe serious professionalism failures: repeated no-shows, broken promises on callbacks, a boss who refuses to communicate directly with clients, and in one case an outright dismissal of a customer with an active emergency. One review describes a severe liability incident involving a company driver and a traffic accident, which — while not directly about plumbing work — raises significant concerns about company accountability and responsibility. The overall professionalism score is dragged sharply downward by the volume and consistency of communication and responsiveness complaints across multiple independent reviewers.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from October 2022, and the majority date from 2016–2019. Recency is poor and current business practices may differ.
• The three positive reviews are relatively brief and generic in praise ('Professional, honest, prompt, knowledgeable and overall awesome!'). One lacks any specific detail, raising a mild concern about authenticity, though not conclusive.
• One 1-star review (truck accident/MRSA) describes a personal injury liability incident unrelated to plumbing workmanship. This was factored into professionalism and accountability assessment but not into experience or project completion scoring.
• Multiple independent reviewers describe the same pattern of no-shows, unreturned calls, and the boss using a secretary as a communication buffer — this consistency across unrelated reviewers increases credibility of the negative feedback.
• Only 7 total reviews are available. This is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning 6+ years, with the majority of data points being older than 12 months, making it a LOW-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current business quality.