Find Nearby Plumbers In Rochester, New York

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism across all reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, pleasant demeanor, and cleanup. Technical competence is well-documented with quick problem-solving and quality workmanship. Pricing feedback is mixed—while most customers found rates reasonable or acceptable, two reviews note pricing as 'a little high' or mention not charging much, suggesting inconsistent value perception. Project completion is solid with timely work and follow-through, though one review notes a service limitation (drain unclogging). The relatively small sample size and age of most reviews (2006–2007, with only one from 2019) limit confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five reviews are from 2006–2007 (15+ years old). Only one review from 2019. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. Scoring is based on limited data and may not represent current operations.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Mixed signals on pricing—some call it 'reasonable' or 'not much,' while others say 'a little high.' This suggests either variable pricing or inconsistent customer expectations.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review #3 uses all caps and very generic language ('VERY GOOD,' 'AS GOOD AS I'VE EVER SEEN') with no specifics. Combined with age and brevity, this raises minor authenticity concerns, though not conclusive.

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (5 reviews) and the fact that 80% of reviews are over 15 years old, making them unreliable indicators of current service quality. A more recent and larger dataset is needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Tom Flanagan demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with customers praising his responsiveness, quality workmanship, and willingness to help in emergencies. However, pricing feedback is mixed: three reviews highlight fair and reasonable pricing, while one 2015 review alleges hidden charges and cost overruns, creating significant tension in the pricing dimension. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects solid overall performance tempered by pricing concerns and the small sample size (4 reviews). Recency is a concern, as two reviews are from 2019–2020 and one from 2015, with only one recent review from 2023.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Only 1 of 4 reviews is from the past 12 months (2023). Two reviews are 4–5 years old (2019–2020), and one is 9 years old (2015). Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• PRICING CONTRADICTION: Three reviews praise fair pricing; one 2015 review alleges hidden charges and cost overruns ('keeps adding to it'). This unresolved conflict significantly impacts pricing confidence. The 2015 negative review is old but serious.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability. All dimensions are scored at MODERATE confidence due to 3 mentions each.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews 1–3 are overwhelmingly positive with generic praise ('sooo happy,' 'Can't get any better,' 'not enough tradesmen'). Review 1 uses informal language ('We was recommend'). However, Review 2 contains specific, detailed narrative (call from Florida, 84-year-old father, explanation of work) that suggests authenticity. Review 3 is generic but plausible. Review 4 is a stark negative outlier. Overall, no strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but the 3-to-1 positive-to-negative ratio warrants caution.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant recency gaps (75% of data is 4+ years old), and an unresolved pricing contradiction between three positive and one negative review. The score reflects strong professionalism and project completion but is undermined by pricing uncertainty and limited current data.

Triple-O demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous staff across 8 reviews. Technical expertise is evident in 7 reviews highlighting knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. However, project completion shows mixed results: while most jobs were completed successfully, two 1-star reviews from 2021 describe incomplete repairs, unresolved issues, and follow-up failures that significantly impact this dimension. Pricing feedback is limited to 3 mentions with conflicting signals—some praise fair/competitive pricing while others report overcharging and poor invoice transparency. The company's strength in professionalism and experience is offset by serious concerns about job completion reliability and pricing clarity.

• Two severe negative reviews (2021) describe incomplete repairs, unresolved boiler issues, and creation of new problems (gas leak). These are not isolated complaints but represent systemic project completion failures.
• Pricing dimension has limited data (3 mentions) with contradictory signals: one review praises fair pricing, another criticizes overcharging and lack of itemized invoicing. This creates uncertainty about actual pricing practices.
• Most positive reviews are from 2018-2020 (older than 12 months). The two most recent detailed reviews (2023 and 2021) show divergent quality—one exceptional, one severely negative—suggesting inconsistent service delivery.
• One review appears to be from a former employee (2022), which may introduce bias despite being detailed and credible.
• The 2021 reviews mention owner defensiveness and poor communication when complaints were raised, suggesting potential customer service issues at management level.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by multiple mentions, the project completion dimension is heavily influenced by two serious failure cases that directly contradict the positive narrative. The limited and conflicting pricing data further reduces overall confidence. The company appears capable of excellent work but has demonstrated significant reliability issues in execution and follow-through.

Kiefer Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent responsiveness and punctuality across multiple reviews, earning an 82 in this dimension. Pricing is perceived as fair and transparent, with customers explicitly noting good value. However, project completion shows significant concern: while most jobs are finished same-day, one critical 1-star review from 2018 alleges a gas leak, a repaired toilet, and a leaking sink—serious safety and quality failures that substantially lower this score to 70. Technical skill is generally praised, but the severe defect report creates doubt. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid professionalism and pricing offset by material completion and safety concerns.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2018-08-02) alleges gas leak left behind—a serious safety hazard. This is not a minor complaint and directly contradicts claims of quality workmanship. This single incident significantly impacts overall trustworthiness.
• Review age disparity: Four reviews are from 2023–2024 (recent, positive); two are from 2017–2018 (one very negative). The negative review is 6+ years old but involves safety, which cannot be dismissed by age alone.
• Possible pattern: Five of six reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language ('great job,' 'super dependable,' 'exceptional work'). While not definitively fake, the uniformity combined with one extreme outlier suggests either inconsistent service quality or selective review posting.
• No recent negative feedback post-2018 may indicate improvement, but insufficient data to confirm.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are consistently positive and suggest strong professionalism and fair pricing, the unresolved 2018 safety incident (gas leak) creates material doubt about reliability and quality control. A score of 78.2 is conservative and appropriate given the severity of that failure, but more recent reviews suggest possible improvement. Recommend requesting references and asking specifically about safety protocols before engaging.

Martins demonstrates solid professionalism with polite, responsive staff and good communication in most interactions, though internal communication gaps were noted in one multi-visit project. Technical work quality is consistently praised across reviews, with competent execution and problem-solving. However, project completion is inconsistent—while most jobs finish successfully, one review highlights incomplete work across three visits and another required two visits to finish simple tasks. Pricing is a significant concern, with one customer reporting substantially higher costs ($200 for a drain trap) compared to competitors, though other reviews mention competitive or lowest-cost pricing. The company appears capable but inconsistent in execution and pricing transparency.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One 2018 review reports significantly inflated pricing ($200 for drain trap, $75 service charge) compared to competitors, while 2020-2021 reviews praise competitive/lowest pricing. This suggests either pricing model changes or selective pricing practices.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: 2021 review documents incomplete work across three separate visits with communication breakdowns between office and field staff. Customer notes 3/3 tasks still incomplete at time of review.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2020-2021 (3-4 years old). Most recent review (2023) is 1-star with no-show and no callback. Oldest negative review (2018) is 5+ years old.
• INVOICE/DOCUMENTATION ISSUE: One customer reported difficulty obtaining invoice/receipt, taking over a month to receive.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical confidence. One 1-star review significantly impacts overall score.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (6 reviews), significant recency concerns (most data 3+ years old), and conflicting signals on pricing and completion consistency. The most recent review (2023) showing non-responsiveness is particularly concerning and may indicate current service quality issues not reflected in older positive reviews.

Montoya Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising Richard and Mark for punctuality, communication, and professional demeanor, which drives a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. Pricing is generally viewed favorably — with multiple reviewers citing competitive quotes and one standout case where Richard saved a customer tens of thousands of dollars on a sewer repair — but one review describes a confusing and seemingly inflated $600 charge for a simple drain unclog, which tempers the pricing score. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: one detailed negative review describes multiple workmanship failures (reversed hot/cold, leaks, improper installation), a cancelled follow-up appointment, and Richard ultimately telling the customer to find someone else, which significantly drags down this dimension. Experience scores moderately well given consistent praise for technical problem-solving and quality work across many reviews, but the same detailed 2014 complaint about below-average workmanship prevents a high score. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2011–2014, with only a handful from recent years, which limits confidence in current performance.

• Three reviews are marked 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several older reviews (2011–2014) dominate the dataset. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), making it difficult to assess current performance with confidence.
• The 2014 negative review is highly detailed and credible, describing multiple specific workmanship failures and an unprofessional response from the owner — this was weighted heavily in project completion and experience scoring.
• The 2022 negative review regarding the $600 drain unclog charge for elderly parents, lack of itemized billing, and unexplained 'deposit' is a notable pricing and professionalism concern.
• The 2024 review about a company truck driver blowing through a yield sign is a professionalism flag but cannot be attributed directly to the plumbing crew's conduct on a job site.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, rating, and writing style, and include credible negative reviews, which increases overall authenticity confidence.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the dataset has enough reviews to produce dimension-level scores, but the heavy concentration of reviews from 2011–2014 means the score may not accurately reflect current service quality, and the small number of recent reviews (3 in the past 24 months) should give prospective customers pause.