Find Nearby Plumbers In Yonkers, New York

Otto Frey Plumbing receives generally positive marks for professionalism and reliability, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, courteous communication, and pleasant interactions. However, notable concerns drag scores down: one reviewer explicitly cited poor technical knowledge and time-padding on billing, and another flagged a lack of awareness around energy-efficient products combined with a cash-to-avoid-tax suggestion. Pricing is a recurring mixed point — some reviewers found them affordable relative to competitors, while others felt overcharged or surprised by costs without upfront transparency. Project completion is mostly solid, with jobs generally finished and follow-up honored, but the toilet repair failure and the hot water heater situation where the customer was not given options represent meaningful gaps. The oldest reviews (2006–2007) are heavily positive but carry reduced weight given they are nearly two decades old.

• RECENCY WARNING: Four of the eight reviews are from 2006–2007, making them nearly 18–19 years old. These reviews carry significantly reduced weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MODERATE): The two all-caps reviews from February 2006 are generic, lack specific detail, and use nearly identical enthusiastic phrasing. While not conclusive, they exhibit patterns consistent with low-authenticity reviews and have been weighted conservatively.
• CASH PAYMENT IRREGULARITY: One reviewer (2015) noted the company invited them to pay cash to avoid sales tax, which is a potential legal and ethical concern worth flagging for prospective customers.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One reviewer (2016) reported being billed 1.5 hours for approximately 1 hour of work with no prior pricing disclosure, suggesting inconsistent upfront cost communication.
• FIRST REVIEW (2018) provides no direct service experience — it is a rebuttal to another reviewer's complaint and should not be treated as a genuine service review. It was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the heavy skew toward very old reviews, two potentially low-authenticity all-caps reviews, and a small total sample size of only 8 reviews — prospective customers should seek more recent and detailed feedback before making a hiring decision.

This contractor has a mixed but generally positive track record across a small review set. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by one 1-star review from 2018 explicitly citing poor attitude, lack of punctuality, unresponsiveness, and failure to honor quotes — serious red flags that cannot be ignored. The majority of positive reviews are vague and lack specific detail, which limits confidence in the higher scores. Pricing receives a moderate score because while most reviewers describe fair or good pricing, the 1-star review directly contradicts this with a complaint about quote-honoring and pricing transparency. Project completion and experience scores are moderately positive but rest on thin, generic praise with little specificity. The most recent review (November 2023) is positive and suggests the business may have improved since the 2018 negative review, but one recent data point is insufficient to override the pattern.

• Only 6 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.
• Four of the six reviews are from 2018, making them over 5 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current performance.
• Several positive reviews are generic and lack specific detail (e.g., 'great service and great people', 'love Barretta & Sons services', 'solid service from start to finish') — this raises mild concern about review authenticity or depth of feedback.
• One 1-star review (2018) explicitly calls out poor attitude, lack of punctuality, unresponsiveness, and failure to honor quotes — this is a serious multi-dimension negative signal that materially impacts professionalism and pricing scores.
• The note in one review about a disconnected phone number may indicate past operational instability, though this is a minor flag.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to the very small review count (6 total), the heavy concentration of reviews from 2018, and the presence of one detailed negative review that directly contradicts the otherwise positive sentiment.

Roto-Rooter's individual technicians receive consistently strong praise for professionalism, communication, and technical skill — with dozens of named technicians (Howard, Oleksii, Sean, Abraham, Miguel, Paul, Joe, and others) earning glowing commendations across hundreds of reviews. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved on the same visit and emergency responsiveness highlighted repeatedly as a major strength. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: an overwhelming volume of negative reviews — spanning years and across multiple boroughs — describe charges of $450–$1,500+ for routine drain snaking jobs that competitors perform for $100–$300, with numerous reviewers explicitly calling the company a scam or rip-off. Transparency failures compound the pricing issue, with multiple reviewers reporting that prices were withheld until after work began or that quoted prices changed unexpectedly. Punctuality and scheduling reliability are also a recurring concern in older reviews, though recent reviews (2024–2025) show improvement in response times.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — HIGH: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on different dates. For example, the review 'Andrew was very knowledgeable and professional. He explained the situation so that I understood what was going on. Very professional.' appears verbatim on both 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06. Similarly, 'Anthony was my service tech and he was amazing!!!! Super diligent and professional...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06. 'My water heater busted in the middle of the night...' appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05. 'Howard Fraser Tech# 7906 Is an AMAZING plumber...' appears on both 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04. These are not paraphrases — they are character-for-character identical. This strongly suggests review manipulation or a system error inflating positive scores.
• BLANK REVIEWS — SCORE INFLATION RISK: Approximately 50+ reviews consist of only a star rating (5 stars) with no text. These were excluded from dimension scoring but inflate the overall star average. Their origin is suspicious given the duplicate review pattern.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND MULTI-YEAR: Negative pricing reviews span from 2009 to 2025, indicating this is not an isolated issue but a structural business practice. Complaints include: undisclosed pricing until after work begins, prices quoted verbally then changed on invoice, diagnostic fees charged after being told the visit was free, and charges 3–5x the market rate for routine jobs.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were not fully completed, work that failed within days of service, and refusal to honor stated warranties — indicating a project completion risk that is partially masked by the high volume of positive short-term reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of 5-star reviews are from 2024–2025 and are heavily concentrated in short bursts (e.g., many reviews dated exactly 2025-04-07, 2025-05-07, 2025-03-08). This clustering pattern, combined with confirmed duplicate reviews, warrants caution in treating recent positive reviews as fully organic.
• UPSELLING AND FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Several reviews across multiple years describe technicians recommending unnecessary work, inflating scopes, or misrepresenting findings (e.g., claiming collapsed pipes that were later found intact, claiming mold that did not exist, charging for camera inspections that produced blank CDs). These are serious integrity concerns beyond mere overpricing.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LIMITED trust for the positive dimensions: while the volume of reviews is large and technician-level professionalism and experience scores are likely directionally accurate, the confirmed presence of duplicate fake reviews, mass blank 5-star entries, and suspicious clustering of review dates means the positive signal is artificially inflated — the pricing score of 28 is the most reliable and consistent signal in the entire dataset, supported by over 140 independent, detailed, and corroborating negative accounts spanning more than a decade.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between highly satisfied customers (2013-2015) and severely dissatisfied recent customers (2020-2021). Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented failures including lack of proper equipment, incomplete work, poor communication, and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing overcharges and lack of transparency. Project completion is compromised by abandoned work and unfinished jobs. While older reviews praise workmanship quality, recent reviews indicate serious skill and knowledge gaps. The recency of negative reviews (2020-2021) versus positive ones (2013-2015) suggests potential service degradation.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: All positive reviews are 6-11 years old (2013-2015). All negative reviews are recent (2020-2021). This pattern suggests significant service quality decline over time.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two recent reviews explicitly document unfinished jobs and abandoned work (pipe unclogging, electrical wiring).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple mentions of unresponsiveness, broken promises about follow-up visits, and poor phone operator handling.
• EQUIPMENT/PREPARATION ISSUES: Worker arrived without proper tools (no electric machine for snake), indicating poor job planning.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Two separate complaints about excessive charges relative to work performed or time spent.
• CLEANUP FAILURES: Customer had to clean up after worker left mess behind.
• CALLBACK VIOLATIONS: Promised follow-up visit never occurred; customer had to contact company multiple times without response.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme temporal polarization of reviews and documented service failures in recent years; the company's current reliability is questionable despite historical positive performance.

E-Jay Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong technical skills and pricing competitiveness undermined by serious professionalism and project completion failures. Positive reviews (5 of 9) praise quick response times, quality workmanship, and fair pricing. However, negative reviews (4 of 9) document critical failures: incomplete work with price increases mid-job, refusal to return for callbacks, failure to provide receipts/documentation, non-responsiveness to customer contact, and deposit disputes. The contractor demonstrates competent plumbing expertise but exhibits unreliable follow-through, poor communication after payment, and unprofessional conduct that directly contradicts the positive testimonials.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization detected — 56% one-star reviews vs. 56% five-star reviews with no middle ground. This suggests either highly inconsistent service delivery or potential review authenticity concerns.
• Multiple reviews document non-completion of work, abandoned jobs, and refusal to return despite customer contact attempts (reviews from 2022-09-08, 2022-03-02).
• Documentation failures: Customer reports unpaid receipt/invoice withheld for 3+ weeks despite repeated requests, impacting insurance claims (2020-09-13 review).
• Deposit/contract disputes: Two reviews document refusal to provide contracts, excessive deposit demands (70%), and unlicensed/uninsured work (2022-07-10).
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2022 or earlier; most positive reviews are from 2019-2020. Recent pattern unclear.
• Possible name inconsistency: Reviews reference 'Ely,' 'Eli,' 'E-Jay,' and 'Ely Alpaca' — may indicate sole proprietor or potential identity confusion.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to extreme review polarization and documented service failures affecting project completion and professionalism. While technical experience scores well, the high frequency of serious complaints regarding non-completion, non-responsiveness, and documentation failures suggests significant operational or behavioral issues that pose real customer risk.