Find Nearby Plumbers In Rochester, New York

Napora Heating and Cooling receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism and responsiveness being the most frequently praised attributes — Yuri and his team are repeatedly described as prompt, courteous, communicative, and willing to respond on evenings, weekends, and holidays. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting costs came in lower than competitors, though two negative reviews raise concerns about a pricing dispute and a potential overcharge on a thermostat installation. Project completion is strong overall, with the vast majority of jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but a small number of reviews note a toilet repair that failed shortly after the visit, a job that required a return trip due to incomplete work, and one instance where a fix was only temporary. Experience scores are high, with many reviewers specifically calling out technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and quality of workmanship across HVAC, plumbing, and boiler work. The single 1-star review with no text and two 2-star reviews citing pricing disputes and a failed repair prevent the scores from reaching the highest tier.

• Two reviews with identical text detected: 'Great. Tech noticed ac not working circuit breaker no good reached for me.' (both dated 2019-06-25) — possible duplicate submission or copy-paste error.
• Two reviews with identical text detected: 'Yuri came, replaced WH, with no fuss, no muss. Nice hot water in no time! Even got 10% Angie's List discount. Definitely would recommend.' (both dated 2017-07-19) — possible duplicate submission.
• Two reviews from 2024-08-13 and 2024-09-12 appear to describe nearly identical experiences (same customer, same list of services, nearly identical phrasing) — possible duplicate or coordinated review.
• Seven reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating), including one 1-star review with no explanation — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• One 1-star review with no text (2025-05-10) is uninterpretable and cannot be scored but may represent a genuine negative experience.
• A 2-star review (2022-06-10) explicitly describes a pricing dispute and an unreturned call from Yuri — this is a credible negative signal for both pricing and professionalism dimensions.
• A 2-star review (2018-09-21) alleges a 50% price premium over competitors and incorrect advice about equipment sizing — credible negative signal for pricing and experience.
• A 2-star review (2017-10-11) describes a toilet repair that failed within hours and was not followed up on — credible negative signal for project completion.
• A 2-star review (2017-08-02) describes both toilets being left in worse condition than before service — credible negative signal for project completion and experience.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are limited in number, so recency-weighted confidence is slightly reduced for trend assessment.
• Overall review pattern is heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings with many generic short reviews, which is a mild fake review risk signal; however, the volume of detailed, specific, named reviews provides sufficient authenticity to maintain scoring confidence.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (155 total, 148 with usable data) spanning multiple years, with consistent patterns across dimensions and a meaningful number of credible negative reviews that have been factored into scoring, making this an overall HIGH reliability assessment — though prospective customers should note the small but consistent pattern of project completion issues on plumbing repairs and at least two credible pricing concerns.

Miller Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning over 15 years, with the vast majority of customers praising Mike and his team for responsiveness, professionalism, and technical expertise across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Pricing is generally described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, though a small number of negative reviews specifically cite overcharging and billing disputes, which temper the pricing score modestly. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, cleanly, and with follow-through — however, one credible negative review describes unfinished paid work and a rude dismissal, and another details a warranty dispute, which meaningfully reduce the completion score. Experience scores highest in terms of consistency, with dozens of reviewers across many years independently describing Mike as knowledgeable, skilled, and a master of his craft. The handful of negative reviews (7 total, covering rudeness, overcharging, no-show estimates, parking complaints, and incomplete work) are credible and specific enough to prevent top-tier scores across all dimensions.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews share the date '2023-06-10', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', and similar June 10 dates across multiple years with no specific timestamps. This pattern is consistent with bulk review imports or date normalization artifacts from a third-party platform, not organic posting. These reviews should be treated with reduced individual weight, though their content is varied enough to suggest they are not entirely fabricated.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS MENTIONED: Reviews reference Mike, Greg, Jeff, Chad, Don, Brian, Pat, and Jimmy — suggesting this is a multi-person operation or a shared business name across different regions/franchises. Some negative reviews (e.g., the estimate no-show review referencing Greg, and the rude technician review referencing a young Hispanic man) may describe different employees than the Mike Miller praised in most reviews. This reduces score reliability as a unified entity.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — OVERCHARGING (2021): One detailed 1-star review describes a $670 bill for under 3 hours of work on simple jobs, with the customer calculating a fair charge of no more than $400. This is a specific, credible pricing complaint that meaningfully impacts the pricing score.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — INCOMPLETE WORK AND RUDE BEHAVIOR (2015): A 1-star review describes a toilet flange set crooked, unfinished paid work, and Mike telling the customer to 'stop wasting his time' and 'never call him again.' This is a serious project completion and professionalism flag.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — ESTIMATE NO-SHOW (2019): A detailed 1-star review describes weeks of waiting for an estimate that never arrived, and an unhelpful staff response. This reflects a systemic communication failure and impacts professionalism scoring.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — WARRANTY DISPUTE (2014): A 1-star review describes Miller Plumbing denying they offered warranty service after charging $125 for a call on a unit they installed. This is a credible project completion and trust concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly detailed, positive reviews are from 2021–2025 and carry the most weight. Reviews from 2006–2014 are older than 10 years and are given reduced weight in scoring, though they are consistent in tone with recent reviews.
• THREE REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: Reviews with content 'unknown', '.', or blank were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with 110 total reviews, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with awareness that multiple technicians operate under the Miller Plumbing name, a cluster of same-date reviews suggests possible platform import artifacts, and a small but credible set of negative reviews raises legitimate concerns about pricing transparency, project follow-through, and occasional unprofessional conduct.

BP Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and consistent body of reviews praising rapid response times, same-day service, courteous staff, and thorough job completion. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, communication, friendly attitudes, and follow-through — including a notable instance of Bryan texting a customer the next morning to confirm a repair held. Pricing scores well but is tempered by two credible negative reviews: one customer reported feeling charged $620 for roughly an hour of work on minor items and called it 'robbery,' and another noted a $140 troubleshooting fee that felt dismissive. Project completion is strong overall, but a 2-star review describing a plumber who misdiagnosed a sewer line as needing full replacement — when a more experienced contractor simply snaked it — and a 2-star review citing inadequate equipment and an unresolved problem on multiple visits introduce meaningful deductions. Experience scores well based on numerous specific accounts of skilled diagnosis and efficient repair, but the misdiagnosis incident and one older review citing substandard snake equipment prevent a higher score.

• BLANK REVIEWS: 9 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed. Their uniformly high ratings (4–5 stars) with zero content slightly inflate the overall impression.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-12-07 are nearly word-for-word identical ('Called Bryan to schedule a drain cleaning. He picked up on 1st ring...'). This may indicate a copy-paste error or a duplicated submission. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2021-06-20 describe the same Father's Day emergency in nearly identical language from what appears to be the same customer. Only one instance was counted.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: 14 reviews have no date. These were included in scoring but given slightly reduced weight as recency cannot be confirmed. Several reference a plumber named 'Bayo' or 'Adebayo' rather than 'Bryan,' which may indicate a different technician or a second operator under the B&P brand — this could not be confirmed from review text alone.
• POSSIBLE DUAL-OPERATOR AMBIGUITY: A subset of undated reviews reference 'Bayo,' 'Adebayo,' or 'B&P Plumbing' rather than 'Bryan' or 'BP Plumbing.' It is unclear whether these reviews are for the same business entity. If they represent a different contractor, the score pool may be mixing two separate service providers.
• NEGATIVE SIGNALS: Three reviews (ratings of 1–2 stars) raise legitimate concerns: one describes a misdiagnosis of a sewer line requiring full replacement that was resolved by a competitor with a simple snake; one describes a $620 charge for minor work described as 'robbery'; and one describes inadequate equipment, an unresolved problem, and a poor external drain recommendation. These are credible, specific, and detailed complaints that meaningfully affect pricing and experience scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2023–2025, which is a positive signal. Several older reviews (2015–2018) are sparse in detail. Recency weighting favors the current score.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review pool with strong recency, and is considered moderately reliable — the high volume of detailed positive reviews provides genuine confidence, but the presence of credible negative reviews regarding pricing transparency and diagnostic accuracy, combined with blank reviews, a possible duplicate submission, and ambiguity around whether all reviews refer to the same operator, prevent a fully unconditional endorsement.

Gatti Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across 42 reviews, with consistent praise for courteous, efficient technicians and responsive scheduling. Technical competence is well-documented across 26 reviews, with skilled diagnostics and problem-solving. Project completion is solid (28 mentions, 81 score) with most jobs finished promptly and thoroughly, though some older reviews cite unresolved issues and callback problems. Pricing receives mixed feedback (9 mentions, 71 score)—many recent reviews praise fair and transparent pricing, but several older reviews (2015–2021) report significant overcharges, billing disputes, and surprise charges. The company appears to have improved operational practices in recent years, as nearly all reviews from 2024–2025 are 5-star with no pricing complaints.

• RECENCY BIAS: 39 of 57 reviews (68%) are from 2024–2025; only 5 reviews are from 2019 or earlier. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2015–2021) contain serious complaints about overcharging, poor follow-up, and unprofessional behavior. This suggests either significant company improvement or potential selection bias in recent review collection.
• PRICING VOLATILITY: Older reviews (2015–2021) contain multiple allegations of surprise charges, billing disputes, and overcharges ($160 quoted vs. $400 charged; $2,000 bill for unsuccessful service). Recent reviews (2024–2025) consistently praise fair pricing. This pattern suggests either past billing practices have been corrected or negative pricing experiences are underrepresented in recent data.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY IN OLDER DATA: Reviews from 2015–2021 describe unprofessional behavior (rude staff, lack of knowledge, poor cleanup, incomplete work), while 2024–2025 reviews describe excellent professionalism. This 9-year gap in service quality is notable and warrants caution.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (2025-04-10 and 2025-02-09) contain no text, only 5-star ratings. These cannot be analyzed for dimension content and reduce data reliability slightly.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple recent reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'courteous,' 'cleaned up afterwards') across different technicians and dates. While this could reflect consistent company training, the high density of identical language in 2024–2025 reviews warrants caution. However, reviews also contain specific details (names, job types, times, problem descriptions) that suggest authenticity.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: The 5 one-star and 2-star reviews (2015–2021) are clustered in older data and describe serious issues (unprofessional behavior, overcharging, incomplete work, poor communication). No negative reviews appear in 2024–2025 data, which is unusual for a company of this size and may indicate selection bias or genuine improvement.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be interpreted with caution due to significant recency bias and a 9-year quality gap between older and recent reviews. The score is heavily weighted toward 2024–2025 data (68% of reviews), which shows consistently high performance, but this masks serious historical issues with billing, professionalism, and follow-through documented in 2015–2021 reviews. If you are evaluating Gatti Plumbing for a current service need, the recent data suggests strong professionalism and technical competence; however, if you are assessing long-term reliability and pricing practices, the older negative reviews warrant direct inquiry about billing procedures and service guarantees before committing.

Wischmeyer's Plumbing Plus demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and knowledge. However, the company shows vulnerability in project completion and pricing transparency. While most reviews are recent (past 12 months) and highly positive, three negative reviews reveal serious concerns: disputed pricing on backflow testing, poor scheduling and incomplete work on multi-day projects, and rude customer service responses to complaints. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair/reasonable rates while others felt overcharged. The company's responsiveness to negative feedback (Addie's outreach) is a positive sign but does not fully offset the underlying issues.

• Three 1-star reviews (2025-04-10, 2014-05-23) and one 2-star review (2025-04-10) indicate legitimate service failures: disputed backflow testing charges, incomplete multi-day project work with poor communication, and rude customer service response to complaints. These are not isolated complaints.
• Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews: one customer felt overcharged for a blocked toilet, another was quoted $545 for backflow rebuild that another company passed without rebuild, and a third felt taken advantage of. This suggests inconsistent or aggressive pricing practices.
• Project completion issues documented: multi-day remodeling work left incomplete with open drains, disconnected laundry system, debris, and damaged hot water heater with refusal to fix it under warranty. Customer had to complain repeatedly to get piecemeal completion.
• Four reviews contain no text (empty reviews with 5-star ratings on 2025-06-02, 2025-05-26, 2025-05-19, 2025-03-11). While not necessarily fake, they provide no usable data.
• Recency bias present: 40 of 52 reviews are from 2025 (past 6 months), with only 4 reviews from 2019 or earlier. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive, but older reviews include significant complaints.
• One review (2025-04-10) explicitly states the customer initially gave 1 star for pricing concerns but upgraded to 5 stars after company outreach. This suggests the initial complaint was valid but was not fully resolved—only addressed through relationship management.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 22–35 mentions, project completion and pricing are based on only 8–10 mentions and show conflicting evidence. The three 1-star reviews and one 2-star review document genuine failures in pricing transparency, project management, and customer service response—these are not outliers but represent real operational weaknesses. The overwhelmingly positive recent reviews suggest the company may have improved, but the pattern of pricing disputes and incomplete work on complex projects warrants skepticism about multi-day or high-value projects.

Superior Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (87.5), project completion (85.0), and technical experience (86.0). The company excels at punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and skilled workmanship, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians like Jamie, Jeff, and Will. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (72.0), with multiple customers citing overcharges, inflated labor costs, and quotes significantly higher than competitors. While most reviews are highly positive and recent (past 12 months), the pricing concerns and several negative experiences regarding cost transparency prevent a higher overall score.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) explicitly mention overcharging, inflated prices, or costs substantially higher than competitors. Examples include $325 for a $57.99 part, $1000 for 3 hours of work, $575 for jobs completed in 2 hours, and $625 for a pressure valve worth ~$100. This is a material pattern.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews describe incomplete work, property damage, or follow-up issues requiring additional service calls (e.g., water pressure problems after regulator replacement, broken pipes left unrepaired, incomplete shower valve installation).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: A few reviews report defensive or dismissive management responses to complaints, including one allegation of harassment to remove a negative review and another describing the owner as 'condescending and defensive.'
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 30 reviews contain no text or only 1-2 words (e.g., '.', 'unknown', 'Everything went well'). These provide minimal evidence but do not suggest fake reviews—they appear to be incomplete submissions.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2020-2025 (past 5 years), while older reviews (2012-2018) show more mixed sentiment. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with specific praise.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Negative reviews (1-2 stars) tend to cite pricing, incomplete work, or poor management response. These are substantive complaints, not generic criticism.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 227 reviews with HIGH overall confidence. The company excels in professionalism and technical skill, but the consistent pattern of pricing complaints (32 mentions, score 72.0) is a material concern that prevents a higher score and should weigh heavily in decision-making, particularly for cost-sensitive customers.