Find Nearby Plumbers In Mount Vernon, New York

Electric Sewer & Drain Service demonstrates consistently strong performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is exceptionally high, with all six reviews praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous staff, and effective communication—particularly highlighting Amanda's phone coordination and Dan's personal follow-up. Pricing is fair and transparent, with customers consistently noting 40–70% savings versus competitors like Roto Rooter. Project completion is reliable, with jobs finished quickly and thoroughly, including same-day emergency service during a pandemic and major snowstorm. Technical expertise is evident in drain diagnosis and problem-solving, though fewer reviews explicitly detail workmanship quality. The company's 30-day guarantee and proactive follow-up further reinforce reliability.

• All six reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback—this is unusual and warrants caution. However, reviews span 2018–2021 with distinct details, specific names (Amanda, Dan, Nelson), and varied scenarios (emergency calls, routine maintenance, coordination challenges), suggesting authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (4 of 6 from 2018–2019); only 2 are from 2020–2021. Recent performance data is limited.
• Experience dimension based on only 4 mentions; score reflects technical knowledge but limited detail on workmanship quality or complexity of jobs handled.

This WW Score of 89.2 is highly reliable for professionalism, pricing, and project completion, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the absence of any negative reviews, limited recent data (only 2 reviews in past 3 years), and fewer explicit mentions of technical experience depth.

Johnson's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across nearly all reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness. Project completion is solid but shows some variability—most jobs are completed successfully and on time, though a few reviews mention delays or incomplete follow-through. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though one significant dispute over diagnostic fees and hidden charges emerged. Experience and technical skill are well-documented, with reviewers frequently citing 30+ years in the trade and expert problem-solving abilities. The business shows strong family involvement and a reputation for honesty that resonates across the customer base.

• One 1-star review (2022-08-12) describes a serious dispute over billing practices: a $128.50 diagnostic fee charged after a $429.67 faucet replacement, followed by alleged threatening behavior. This is a material concern for pricing transparency and professionalism.
• One 1-star review (2021-02-01) appears to reference a different plumber or service provider entirely—mentions 3 different plumbers and a $75 service call + $140 charge. This may not be about Johnson's Plumbing directly.
• One 3-star review (2014-09-27) describes a significant project completion issue: the plumber (Elton) abandoned the job mid-way for 2 days to work on another project, leaving the customer without access to their bathroom. This is a notable reliability concern.
• One 2-star review (2012-06-02) describes chronic non-completion: a kitchen faucet repair promised for 'next Saturday' was never completed over multiple months despite repeated calls. This is a serious project completion failure.
• One 3-star review (2020-08-09) notes the plumber was uncomfortable with non-standard situations (condo attic water heater), suggesting potential limitations in adaptability.
• One 1-star review (2014-01-17) describes a pattern of poor responsiveness: no callback on first attempt, missed appointment on second attempt, and lack of service orientation on third attempt. This contradicts the otherwise strong professionalism profile.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (majority from 2012-2019). Only 3 reviews are from 2024, 1 from 2022, and 1 from 2021. Recent data is limited.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show specific details, varied experiences, and natural language variation.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable at HIGH confidence for overall professionalism and experience, but should be interpreted with caution regarding project completion and pricing due to several documented failures and disputes. The score is heavily weighted toward older reviews (pre-2020), so current service quality may differ. The presence of 4 low-star reviews (1-2 stars) describing serious issues with follow-through, billing practices, and responsiveness indicates this contractor has a meaningful track record of problems alongside many satisfied customers. Prospective clients should prioritize recent references and clarify billing practices and project timelines in writing before engaging.

KB Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, with multiple customers praising professionalism and skill. However, the score is significantly dragged down by serious project completion failures: two customers reported abandoned work and complete lack of follow-up callbacks despite repeated contact attempts. While most reviews are positive and detailed, the critical failures in accountability and job completion represent a material risk that outweighs the positive feedback. The company demonstrates inconsistency—some team members (Ben, Darren, Kacey, Rod) receive consistent praise, while systemic issues with callbacks and follow-through suggest organizational problems.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews dated 2022-02-26 and 2022-02-09 appear to be exact or near-identical duplicates, suggesting possible fake review inflation. This reduces confidence in the overall positive sentiment.
• CRITICAL PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews (2020-11-21 and 2020-04-08) describe complete abandonment of work and systematic failure to return calls despite multiple contact attempts. These are not minor complaints but represent fundamental business failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2020-2022. Only one review is from 2018. Recent data is limited, and the most recent negative review (2022-11-29) suggests ongoing issues.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Positive reviews consistently mention specific team members by name (Ben, Darren, Kacey, Rod), while negative reviews reference generic 'owner' or 'receptionist' issues, suggesting quality varies significantly by staff member and organizational/administrative failures are systemic.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical expertise and pricing appear solid based on multiple consistent mentions, the documented project completion failures and callback issues represent serious red flags that are not offset by positive reviews. The duplicate reviews further reduce confidence. Potential customers should specifically ask about follow-up work guarantees and callback protocols before engaging.

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, noting promptness, clear communication, friendly attitudes, and strong office staff — this is the best-supported dimension. Project completion and experience are backed by two reviews each, most notably the detailed account of Matt persisting through a severely clogged drain with multiple techniques until the job was done. Pricing is mentioned in two reviews but with nuance: one reviewer noted the company was 'not the cheapest' while another described costs as 'within typical costs,' suggesting fair but not budget pricing. Overall the picture is positive, but the very small review pool and the age of some reviews (one from 2017, one from 2022) significantly limit reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• One review is from 2017 (over 6 years old) and one from 2022 (over 1 year old) — only one review falls within the past 12 months, reducing recency confidence.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details and do not appear to be fake, the absence of any critical feedback means the score may not reflect a complete picture of performance.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning a 6-year period, with just one review from the past 12 months, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current performance.

This contractor has a small and heavily dated review pool, with the majority of reviews coming from 2011–2016 and only one review from the past 12 months. Positive signals include on-time arrival, transparent pricing, and solving problems other plumbers could not, which speak well to experience and project completion. However, a serious professionalism flag — a 1-star review citing catcalling behavior by workers driving a company vehicle — significantly drags down the professionalism dimension and cannot be ignored. The single recent review (2024) is positive, but one data point is insufficient to establish a reliable current trend. Overall scores are conservative given the age of most reviews and the serious conduct complaint.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2023) reported that company workers catcalled her from a company truck. This is a significant professionalism and reputational concern and was weighted heavily against the professionalism score.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 7 reviews are more than 8 years old (2011–2016). Only 1 review is within the past 12 months. The WW Score should not be treated as reflective of current service quality.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews with 6 containing usable data. This is a very small sample and all dimension scores carry limited-to-moderate confidence at best.
• ONE REVIEW MARKED 'unknown': The review with text 'unknown' was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable information.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the generic and brief nature of several older reviews limits their analytical value.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence overall — the review pool is very small, predominantly outdated by nearly a decade, and includes a serious unresolved conduct complaint that meaningfully undermines the professionalism dimension.

Alvarez Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by repeated no-shows, late arrivals, rude office staff, and a serious allegation of misconduct by the owner, though a meaningful number of reviewers praised individual plumbers as polite and responsive. Pricing is a significant weak point, with multiple reviewers citing undisclosed trip charges, inflated hours, and billing irregularities that felt deceptive — only a handful of reviewers described pricing as fair or transparent. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: a recurring pattern of incomplete work, toilets re-clogging within days, and the company refusing to honor callbacks or warranties without additional charges is documented across many independent reviews spanning multiple years. Experience scores moderately, as several reviewers praised specific technicians for skill and knowledge, but this is offset by documented cases of wrong parts installed, incomplete hydro-jetting, and a $900 device installed that did not address the actual problem.

• RECURRING CALLBACK REFUSAL PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews describe work failing within days and Alvarez refusing to return without additional charges. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING IRREGULARITIES: Multiple reviewers across different years cite undisclosed trip charges, inflated labor hours, and late invoice delivery followed by immediate collection calls. This pattern suggests a structural billing problem.
• OWNER MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2018-02-10) alleges the owner Dominic made unwanted advances during a service visit. This is a serious flag that cannot be verified but is noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2023) continue to show negative patterns consistent with older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time. Positive reviews are spread across all years and do not cluster recently.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews vary significantly in detail, tone, length, and rating. No strong pattern of coordinated fake reviews detected. Both positive and negative reviews contain specific names, dates, and job details lending credibility.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Approximately 30% of reviews predate 2020 and were given reduced weight in scoring. The pattern of complaints is consistent across all time periods, which increases concern rather than reducing it.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews with strong dimension coverage across all four categories, yielding HIGH confidence — however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the consistent multi-year pattern of post-service failures, billing disputes, and callback refusals that suggest systemic rather than isolated problems.