Find Nearby Plumbers In New Rochelle, New York

Greg Law Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, clear communication, politeness, and responsiveness across 9 reviews. Project completion is the strongest dimension (91/100) with 10 reviews explicitly confirming jobs finished completely, on-time delivery, and thorough follow-through including testing and guarantees. Pricing receives a solid 78/100 based on 7 mentions emphasizing fair, reasonable rates compared to competitors, though one negative review (1-star) significantly impacts this score due to a $150 consultation charge dispute. Experience scores 87/100 across 8 mentions highlighting strong technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. The single 1-star review from 2019 regarding an unexpected consultation fee creates the primary detractor but is outweighed by 10 five-star reviews with detailed, specific praise.

• One significant negative review (2019-04-13) regarding unexpected $150 consultation charge disputes the otherwise uniformly positive pattern. This appears to be a legitimate service disagreement rather than a fake review.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (8 of 11 reviews are from 2019-2023). Only 3 reviews are from 2024 or recent 2023. Recency of feedback is limited.
• While 10 of 11 reviews are 5-star with detailed, specific examples (not generic praise), the consistency is notable but supported by concrete details (specific problems fixed, pricing comparisons, timeline specifics), reducing fake review concerns.
• The 1-star review provides specific, credible complaint details that align with a real service dispute, lending authenticity to the overall review set.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable based on 11 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (7-10 mentions each), though the score should be understood as reflecting primarily 2018-2023 performance with limited recent data from 2024.

Drain King demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength (85.2), with extensive evidence of punctuality, courteous technicians, and clean work practices across 187 mentions. Project completion is solid (84.6) with most jobs finished efficiently and on-time. Experience scores well (83.4) with technicians demonstrating strong diagnostic and problem-solving skills. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (73.1), with recurring complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and price increases. While the majority of reviews are highly positive, the pricing concerns and scattered negative experiences prevent a higher overall score.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews cite significant price increases (e.g., $165→$370 first hour), unexpected charges beyond quotes, and complaints of overcharging. This is the most consistent negative theme.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While most reviews are 5-star, there are scattered 1-star reviews citing rude technicians, incomplete work, no-shows, and poor follow-up. Some appear to involve specific technicians (e.g., Santo, Richie Shaw) rather than systemic issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews from March-June 2025 are extremely generic with identical phrasing ('professional,' 'efficient,' 'highly recommend,' 'no mess'), minimal detail, and suspiciously clustered dates. These lack specificity typical of genuine reviews and may inflate scores artificially.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Three nearly identical reviews from David Cioto (March 9, 2024) appear to be duplicates or near-duplicates, suggesting possible review manipulation.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text or only ratings, making them unusable for scoring but inflating review count.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive 5-star; older reviews (2010-2018) show more balanced criticism, suggesting either genuine improvement or review curation.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple service areas (Whittier CA, Haverhill MA, NH, Plaistow, Fridley MN), suggesting either multiple franchises or inconsistent branding, which may explain service quality variance.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for overall assessment but should be interpreted cautiously: the HIGH confidence is supported by large mention counts across all dimensions, but the score is artificially elevated by a cluster of suspicious generic reviews from early 2025 and potentially inflated by review curation. The pricing dimension (73.1) is the most trustworthy negative finding, backed by specific, detailed complaints spanning multiple years. Prospective customers should expect strong professionalism and technical competence but should obtain detailed written quotes and clarify all pricing terms upfront before engaging services.

Goldens Bridge Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, responsiveness, and workmanship quality. The company excels at emergency response and scheduling flexibility, with multiple reviews praising same-day or next-day service. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with two explicit 1-star reviews citing high costs and one review noting the company is 'way up there' in price despite acknowledging quality work. The overall WW Score of 82.1 reflects excellent execution and customer service tempered by legitimate pricing concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• Pricing concern: Two 1-star reviews (2021-08-16 and 2019-03-07) explicitly cite high pricing as a primary complaint, with one reviewer stating 'this guy is way up there' in cost. One additional review (2013-02-21) notes 'a bit pricey but worth it,' suggesting consistent premium pricing perception.
• Professionalism red flag: One 1-star review (2021-08-16) alleges condescending and rude behavior 'every time,' with specific concern about treatment of women. This is a serious allegation that contradicts the overwhelmingly positive professionalism feedback and warrants consideration.
• Subcontracting concern: One 1-star review (2019-03-07) notes 'Much of his work is subcontracted to other plumbers,' raising questions about direct service quality control.
• Data quality issue: Multiple reviews with 0.0 ratings (2013-06-19, 2013-02-21, 2013-02-19, 2012-01-02, 2011-07-15, 2010-10-15) contain positive text but zero star ratings, suggesting data entry errors or system anomalies. These were included in analysis but represent potential data integrity concerns.
• Review age: 16 of 43 reviews (37%) are older than 5 years (pre-2019), with oldest dating to 2010. Recent reviews (past 12 months) number only 1, limiting recency weighting. Most substantive feedback is 3-10 years old.
• Generic praise pattern: Several reviews are extremely brief ('It was great,' 'Great work,' 'THEY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB') with minimal specificity, though this is not pervasive enough to suggest systematic fake reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across three dimensions (26-28 mentions each), but should be interpreted with awareness that pricing concerns are legitimate and documented, the single professionalism allegation is serious despite being an outlier, and the dataset is heavily weighted toward reviews older than 3 years with minimal recent data to confirm current service standards.

24 Hour Plumbing and Sewer receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised quality — reviewers repeatedly highlight prompt responses, courteous technicians, and respectful communication even during late-night and holiday emergencies. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers specifically noting that quotes were honored and that technicians did not exploit urgent situations to overcharge; however, one reviewer noted the price was 'a little much' on Super Bowl Sunday, and a 3-star reviewer raised concerns about an arrogant technician and lack of written estimates. Project completion scores are strong but tempered by one serious 1-star review alleging a technician took payment, left to get supplies, and never returned — a significant red flag that meaningfully pulls this dimension down. Experience scores are solid, with multiple reviewers noting that technicians diagnosed problems that previous plumbers had failed to resolve, though a small number of reviews lack enough technical detail to fully validate skill level.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One 1-star review (2019-03-08) explicitly states the plumber took money, left to purchase supplies, and never returned, leaving the customer without service and causing additional damage. This is a significant trust and completion concern that cannot be dismissed.
• ARROGANCE AND NO WRITTEN ESTIMATE: A 3-star review (2020-09-02) describes one technician as arrogant, unwilling to listen to the customer, and providing no written estimate — only a verbal starting price. The reviewer, a retired law enforcement professional, declined service as a result.
• REVIEW RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews (approximately 20 of 27) are dated before 2022, with only 1 review from the past 12 months (2024-04-15). This limits confidence in whether current service quality matches historical performance.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MILD: Several reviews are highly generic (e.g., 'Great service!! Mike was honest and did a great job') with no specific details about the job performed, technician behavior, or pricing. These reviews add little verifiable signal and may inflate perceived sentiment. No strong pattern of coordinated fake reviews detected, but a few low-detail 5-star reviews warrant mild skepticism.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS NAMED: Reviews reference Mike, Warren, John, Randy, Chad, Danny, Courtney, and Mike S. — suggesting a team operation. Quality appears to vary by technician, with Warren and Mike receiving the most consistent praise and at least one unnamed technician receiving a negative characterization.

This WW Score is based on a moderately sized review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by one serious misconduct allegation, one credible complaint about technician conduct and lack of written estimates, and the fact that the vast majority of reviews are more than two years old.

Chris' Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across 18 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and to specification, though two negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) reveal significant issues including incomplete work, poor follow-up, and scheduling failures that temper this dimension. Technical expertise is evident across 12 mentions, with reviewers praising diagnostic skills and problem-solving ability. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on 6 mentions, with several customers noting competitive or below-quote charges. The presence of two serious negative reviews (incomplete job, poor communication, no follow-up; and cancellation/lateness issues) prevents a higher overall score despite overwhelming 5-star ratings.

• 23 of 25 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative detail, suggesting potential review selection bias or fake review patterns. The two negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) provide specific, credible complaints that contrast sharply with generic praise in most positive reviews.
• Most reviews lack specific dates (13 of 25 have no date provided), making recency assessment difficult. Dated reviews range from 2011–2022, with older reviews (2011–2017) showing only praise while undated reviews show both extremes.
• The 1-star review describes serious issues (incomplete work, poor cleanup, no follow-up, excuses) that are credible and detailed, suggesting real problems despite overwhelmingly positive sentiment elsewhere.
• The 2-star review documents specific failures (cancellation 20 minutes before appointment, 2-hour lateness, poor office communication) that indicate operational inconsistency.
• High concentration of generic praise language ('awesome,' 'great,' 'professional') across many reviews without specific technical detail raises authenticity concerns, though the two negative reviews appear genuine.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the HIGH confidence is supported by 18+ mentions per dimension, the overwhelming concentration of 5-star reviews with minimal specificity, combined with two credible negative reviews documenting serious failures (incomplete work, poor follow-up, scheduling issues), suggests the true performance may be more variable than the 82.1 score indicates. The company appears capable of excellent work but has demonstrated significant operational and follow-through failures in at least two documented cases.

Allstate Piping Corp earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a consistent pattern of prompt responsiveness, fair pricing, and technically competent work across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Professionalism is well-supported by multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and courteous attitude, though two negative reviews — one citing a 2.5-hour late arrival with a mismatched part and an unresolved drip, and one objecting to a $175 diagnostic fee — prevent a top-tier score. Project completion scores well due to several standout examples of follow-through, including returning months later to honor a commitment and working on Christmas Eve in extreme conditions, but the negative review describing an incomplete fix and an attempt to charge extra for the resulting drip introduces a meaningful deduction. Experience is supported by multiple accounts of accurate diagnosis, quality workmanship, and creative problem-solving such as defrosting frozen pipes and reworking pipe configurations for a larger water heater. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with the one pricing complaint reflecting a service call fee policy rather than hidden charges, keeping this dimension solid but not perfect.

• Two reviews are clearly negative (1-star) and represent meaningful counterweights to the otherwise positive pool — these were fully incorporated into scoring.
• Several reviews use similarly enthusiastic language ('professional,' 'prompt,' 'fair price'), but enough specific detail exists across reviews (named technicians, specific jobs, dates, locations) to suggest these are genuine rather than fabricated.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews date from 2019–2020, with only three reviews from 2022–2023. The most recent reviews remain positive, but the review base is aging and may not fully reflect current service quality.
• One reviewer explicitly stated distrust of online reviews for plumbers in this category, which does not affect scoring but is noted as a sentiment flag.
• Sample size of 15 reviews is sufficient for a WW Score but remains relatively modest; confidence would increase meaningfully with additional recent reviews.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given 15 reviews with strong dimensional coverage, but should be interpreted with some caution due to the aging review base (most reviews are 3–5 years old) and the presence of two substantive negative experiences that highlight real service inconsistencies.