Find Nearby Plumbers In Rochester, New York

P&G Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed performance profile across a large review base. On the positive side, a strong majority of reviewers praise fast response times, competitive pricing, and satisfactory job completion — particularly for water heater replacements and drain clearing. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18 out of 80) describe serious failures: no-shows after confirmed appointments, poor follow-through on callbacks, work left incomplete or done incorrectly, and in at least one case a dishonesty allegation involving asbestos pipe concealment. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated patterns of missed appointments, poor communication mid-job, and failure to return after issues arose. Project completion is similarly penalized by multiple reviews describing abandoned or botched work with no resolution. Pricing scores moderately well overall, with many customers noting competitive quotes, though a few reviews flag unexpected charges or poor value for substandard work.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A notable number of 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific job details (e.g., 'Great service! Amazing value!', 'Great company to work with. Highly recommend.'). This pattern is consistent with potentially inflated reviews and reduces confidence in the upper end of positive scores.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2024-09-20) explicitly states the owner is dishonest and that new valves were attached to 30-year asbestos pipes and covered up. This is a significant safety and ethics flag that cannot be ignored.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 reviews across multiple years (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) describe confirmed appointments where technicians did not show up and provided no communication. This is a systemic reliability issue.
• CALLBACK/FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe being ghosted after raising post-job issues — including a reversed bath cartridge never fixed, a backflow never repaired, water damage never compensated, and a noisy installation never addressed.
• QUALITY CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews explicitly cite poor workmanship — unlevel cuts, missing pipe brackets, incorrect installations, and unnecessary wall/ceiling damage. One reviewer noted a different plumber fixed in 30 minutes what P&G could not complete in two visits.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2022–2024, making the dataset reasonably current. One outlier review from 2014 (aggressive billing dispute) was included but given minimal weight due to age.
• ONE REVIEWER explicitly warned that 'majority of the reviews seem fake' — this aligns with the scoring engine's own pattern detection and is noted as a corroborating flag.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (80 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to credible fake review patterns among 5-star submissions, a systemic no-show problem documented across multiple years, at least one serious safety/ethics allegation, and recurring post-job abandonment complaints that meaningfully offset the many positive experiences reported.

Mr. Rooter of Rochester presents a deeply mixed profile across its review history. Professionalism scores moderately well — many reviewers praise individual technicians as polite, prompt, and communicative — but this is undercut by multiple serious complaints about technicians with questionable credentials, unprofessional behavior (one tech told a customer he was 'pissing him off' and left), and a pattern of upselling unnecessary work. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming number of reviews across many years describe charges as significantly above market rate, with specific comparisons to competitors charging 50–75% less for identical work, hidden fees, and pressure tactics to lock in payments. Project completion is middling — many jobs were completed quickly and satisfactorily, but there are credible accounts of abandoned work, unresolved issues, broken parts left behind, and a no-show incident. Experience scores reflect genuine competence from some technicians but is dragged down by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect tool selection, and at least one technician who appeared to have no plumbing background at all.

• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC CONCERN: Across reviews spanning 2006–2025, overpricing is the single most consistent complaint. Multiple reviewers independently obtained competing quotes at 50–75% lower cost for identical work. This is not isolated; it appears to be a structural business practice.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews from May–June 2025 contain very short, generic praise ('Great service!', 'Fast helpful professional', 'Great and fast service!!') with no specifics. Several reviews in this cluster have no text at all (rating only). This pattern is consistent with review padding and should reduce confidence in the recent positive cluster.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2017-12-12 are nearly identical in content (kitchen sink/$391 complaint), differing only in one word ('steal' vs 'steel'). These appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice and have been counted as one unique incident.
• CREDENTIAL CONCERN: One reviewer (June 2025) explicitly states the assigned technician had 20 years of CDL truck driving experience with no plumbing credentials listed on his profile. This is a serious safety and competency flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of negative reviews are from 2013–2022 and may not reflect current operations. However, negative pricing and competency complaints persist into 2025, suggesting the issues have not been fully resolved.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 9 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• REFUND/BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews describe difficulty obtaining promised refunds, unauthorized charges, and pressure to pay before work was agreed upon. This is a recurring business practice concern, not an isolated incident.

This WW Score of 62.1 is based on a large review set (72 reviews) spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should note that the recent positive reviews show signs of padding, while the negative reviews are highly specific and credible — meaning the true quality experience may be lower than the score suggests, particularly regarding pricing transparency.

Pal-Mac Plumbing & Heating shows a mixed but generally functional track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by one detailed negative review describing a bad-tempered owner, an employee smoking inside a client's home, and poor communication about costs — offset by several reviews praising punctuality and responsiveness. Pricing is similarly split: multiple reviewers found costs reasonable or pleasantly surprising, but one reviewer explicitly described bait-and-switch quoting and billing for coffee breaks and hardware store runs. Project completion is moderate-to-positive, with most jobs finished and one notable callback honored at no charge, but one reviewer had to hire a second plumber to fix Pal-Mac's mistakes. Experience scores reflect adequate technical ability in most cases — finding a hard-to-locate leak, adapting to unexpected broken parts — but the poor workmanship complaint in the negative review prevents a higher score.

• One review is marked 'unknown' with a 2-star rating and no text — this review was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is January 2017, oldest is 2012). No recent reviews are available, which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current service quality.
• One highly detailed 1-star review (2014) describes multiple serious issues: bad temper, employee smoking indoors, billing for non-work time, poor workmanship requiring a second plumber, and deceptive quoting. This review is specific and credible and was weighted heavily in scoring.
• The majority of positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail, which slightly raises generic praise concerns, though most do include at least one concrete detail (on-time arrival, specific repair type, callback honored) and are therefore considered usable.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while mention counts are sufficient across all dimensions, all reviews are between 7 and 12 years old, making it impossible to assess current service quality, and the presence of one highly credible and detailed negative review introduces meaningful downward pressure that cannot be dismissed.

Goodwill Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is significantly hampered by documented communication failures (unreturned calls) and poor customer service interactions, though some reviews praise responsiveness and courtesy. Pricing receives a moderate score due to conflicting evidence: several reviews highlight fair and competitive rates, but one detailed complaint describes aggressive pricing ($86 for 3 minutes of work). Project completion and experience scores are supported by positive feedback on work quality and timely job delivery, though the sample size is limited. The overall WW Score of 68.2 reflects a business with genuine capability but concerning inconsistency in customer service and pricing transparency.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 6 reviews are older than 3 years (2015-2018, 2021-2022). Only 2 reviews from 2022 provide recent data. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Strong contradiction between reviews praising 'reasonable' and 'lower than big outfits' pricing versus detailed complaint of $86 for 3-minute service call. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or significant service-call minimums not disclosed upfront.
• COMMUNICATION RED FLAG: One review explicitly documents multiple unreturned calls, directly contradicting claims of being 'very responsive' in another review. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews limits confidence in dimensional scores. Scores based on 3-4 mentions each carry inherent volatility.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant recency gaps, and documented inconsistencies in service quality and pricing practices. The score reflects a business with demonstrated technical competence but notable concerns about communication reliability and pricing transparency that require verification before engagement.

Ron's Plumbing has a mixed but generally positive track record across usable reviews. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praise quick response times, fair and competitive pricing, and solid technical workmanship — one reviewer saved hundreds of dollars compared to competing estimates. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by two serious negative incidents: a 2018 review describing extremely abusive and profane communication toward a prospective customer, and a 2015 review describing a no-call, no-show after a confirmed appointment. These incidents are severe enough to substantially reduce the professionalism score despite the majority of reviews being positive. The most recent substantive review (2024) is positive, but the gap between that and the prior usable review is large, limiting confidence in current consistency.

• Three reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' or '.') and were excluded from scoring — these appear to be placeholder or bot-generated entries and inflate the raw review count without providing evidence.
• Two of the three blank/unknown reviews share the exact same date (2017-04-21) and rating (5.0), suggesting possible fake or duplicate review submissions.
• The majority of substantive reviews are older than 5 years, with only one review from the past 12 months (2024). Recency of data is low and current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from older reviews.
• The 2018 profanity/abuse incident is a serious professionalism red flag. The contractor reportedly sent abusive texts multiple times to a prospective customer who had not been served yet, suggesting a pattern risk rather than an isolated misunderstanding.
• The 2015 no-show incident corroborates a pattern of reliability issues that partially contradicts the otherwise positive responsiveness narrative in older reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while there are enough substantive reviews to calculate a score, the data is heavily skewed toward reviews that are 5–11 years old, three reviews were unusable, and two serious negative incidents meaningfully undermine the otherwise positive pattern — consumers should weight the 2018 and 2015 incidents heavily when making a hiring decision.

Dave Carr's reviews present a sharply divided picture. Two positive reviews praise his responsiveness, communication, problem-solving ability, and fair pricing across multiple successful projects. However, one highly detailed negative review describes a serious incident involving incorrect plumbing that caused a $25,000 flood, work performed without a permit, no insurance, and a confrontational attitude — all of which significantly drag down scores across every dimension. The negative review is specific, credible, and describes material harm, making it impossible to dismiss. Project completion and experience scores are particularly penalized given the documented plumbing failure and need to rip out and replace all of Dave's work.

• One review describes a severe plumbing failure causing a $25,000 flood to an adjacent business, with all work needing to be replaced at the client's cost.
• The negative review alleges work was performed without a permit and without insurance — serious professional and legal concerns.
• The negative review also describes a confrontational attitude toward neighboring tenants, corroborating professionalism concerns.
• Only 3 reviews total are available, which is below the threshold for high reliability. Scores should be treated with caution.
• The two positive reviews are dated 2020 and 2012 respectively; the negative review is from 2019. No reviews are within the past 12 months relative to a current 2024 assessment, meaning all data is at least 4 years old.
• The oldest positive review (2012) is over 10 years old and carries significantly reduced weight due to recency rules.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews available, all dated more than 4 years ago, with one review describing a serious documented incident that materially offsets the two positive accounts.