Find Nearby Plumbers In Yonkers, New York

Premium Sewer and Drain earns strong marks across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers praising Adonis and the team for technical skill, thoroughness, and professional demeanor. Pricing was mentioned positively in a handful of reviews as reasonable and transparent. However, two separate reviews — one from January 2024 and one from December 2022 — describe the company failing to show up or communicate on agreed-upon service days, which is a significant reliability concern that meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. The most recent review in the dataset (January 2024) is a 1-star complaint about a no-show, which under recency weighting carries elevated importance and suggests the reliability issue may be ongoing rather than resolved.

• RELIABILITY CONCERN: Two reviews (2022-12-27 and 2024-01-07) explicitly describe no-shows or complete failure to communicate on scheduled service days. This is a serious pattern affecting both professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (2024-01-07) is a 1-star no-show complaint. The majority of positive reviews are from 2022, meaning recent performance data is limited and skews negative.
• POSSIBLE NAME CONCENTRATION: The name 'Adonis' appears in 8 of 13 reviews. While this may reflect a primary technician, it could also suggest some reviews are from a narrow referral network. No fake review pattern confirmed, but noted.
• SMALL DATASET: Only 13 reviews total. While confidence thresholds are met for most dimensions, the overall picture could shift significantly with additional reviews.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the 13-review dataset and HIGH confidence on three of four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to two documented no-show incidents and the fact that the most recent review is a negative one, suggesting potential decline in service reliability.

Greenfield Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with most customers praising workmanship quality and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent professionalism and pricing concerns. Multiple reviews document rude behavior from owner Joe, unprofessional staff conduct, late arrivals without notification, and aggressive emergency service fees ($199-$299). Pricing complaints appear across 28 reviews, with customers consistently describing the company as overpriced relative to competitors. While recent reviews (2024) show improved service quality, older patterns of owner rudeness and organizational issues create a mixed reputation that prevents a higher overall score.

• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2023, 2019, 2018, 2015, 2014) document aggressive, rude, and unprofessional behavior from owner Joe/Joey. This is not isolated—it appears across different time periods and customer interactions.
• EMERGENCY FEE CONTROVERSY: Two detailed 2023 reviews describe identical aggressive emergency service fee structure ($199 to activate service + $299 for dispatch), suggesting this is a deliberate business practice that customers find exploitative.
• PRICING CONSISTENCY: 28 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, with customers describing costs as 'way over-priced,' 'exorbitant,' and 'much higher than expected.' This is the single most consistent complaint across the dataset.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews document incomplete or failed work requiring callbacks (2017, 2015, 2014 reviews on drain issues, AC installation failures, boiler problems). One 2022 review shows the company referring work to competitors because they lacked proper equipment.
• STAFF PROFESSIONALISM VARIANCE: While many technicians (Doug, Billy, John, Mike, Eddie) receive individual praise, others are documented as rude, inattentive, or disorganized. This suggests inconsistent hiring/training standards.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 15+ reviews contain only 'unknown' or single-word text ('estimate,' '.', 'the job') with 5-star ratings from 2012-2016. These appear to be placeholder or incomplete entries rather than genuine reviews, though they don't constitute coordinated fake praise.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014-2023 (owner behavior, pricing, incomplete work). Recent 2024 reviews are predominantly positive, suggesting either improved management or selection bias in who leaves recent reviews.

This WW Score of 74.2 is reliable but reflects a company in transition: strong technical execution and responsiveness are offset by persistent owner/staff professionalism issues and industry-leading pricing complaints. The HIGH confidence is justified by 68+ mentions of professionalism and 52+ of project completion, but customers should expect premium pricing and potential friction with management. Recent 2024 reviews suggest improvement, but the 15+ year pattern of complaints warrants caution.

Michael Coleman Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, and professional demeanor, with many customers highlighting quick turnaround times and knowledgeable staff. However, several substantive negative reviews significantly temper the overall picture: one detailed account describes abandoned work, weeks of unresponsiveness, and four rooms left without heat after a paid service call; another describes a contractor shouting at a client, failing to obtain a promised permit for weeks, and attempting to charge extra costs after the fact; a third describes subcontractors who damaged property, failed to communicate, and left debris behind. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple mentions of competitive and fair quotes, though one reviewer felt significantly overcharged for substandard work. The review set spans from 2010 to 2020, meaning many reviews are well outside the 12-month recency window, which reduces confidence in current performance levels.

• Two reviews are effectively blank or near-blank ('unknown', '.', 'See above.', 'fixed easily', 'It was excellent') and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews dated 2016-05-04 and 2016-05-05 are near-identical in wording ('He was responsive, helpful and the job was completed quickly and efficiently. He was also asked to consult on a problem with a water heater, and came up with a good compromise.') — possible duplicate or suspicious submission.
• Three reviews dated 2015-08-18 all carry 5-star ratings with minimal specifics; one appears to be from a business partner/property management company, which may reflect a non-arm's-length relationship rather than an independent customer review.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 30 of 38) are older than 12 months from a 2025 reference point, with most clustering between 2016 and 2020. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges that Michael Coleman Plumbing sends aggressive follow-up emails soliciting Angie's List reviews, and suggests this may have suppressed honest negative feedback. This is a credible concern that may inflate the positive review ratio.
• The negative reviews (ratings of 1–3) are highly detailed and specific, lending them strong credibility. They describe serious issues including incomplete work, permit failures, aggressive behavior toward a client, and subcontractor mismanagement — all of which materially reduce dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high statistical reliability given the volume of reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously due to credible and detailed negative reviews, a suspected review solicitation pattern, near-duplicate submissions, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of reviews are more than 12 months old.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

O'Grady Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. On the positive side, many reviewers praise individual technicians — particularly Edy, Jake, Matteo, Brendan, and Tung — for being knowledgeable, professional, courteous, and effective at solving complex plumbing problems. However, a significant and recurring pattern of negative reviews across multiple years consistently cites no-shows, missed appointments without notification, failure to follow up on quotes, poor responsiveness, and in several cases work that was not completed correctly on the first visit requiring costly return trips. Pricing complaints are also notable, with multiple reviewers describing charges as excessive relative to the work performed, and at least one reviewer alleging overbilling. The professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by these recurring service failures, which appear to be a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. The experience score is somewhat higher because when technicians do show up and engage fully, the technical quality of work is frequently praised.

• 13 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of 10+ reviews from May 2025 and April 2025 are all 5-star with minimal or no text. While not conclusively fake, the volume of blank or near-blank 5-star reviews in a short window warrants caution and may inflate the perceived rating average.
• Recurring no-show and non-responsiveness complaints span from 2007 through 2025, suggesting a persistent systemic issue with scheduling reliability and follow-through — not isolated incidents.
• One review (2017) describes an O'Grady employee sending threatening and abusive messages via Yelp to a customer who left a review. This is a serious professionalism flag.
• Multiple reviews describe being charged for return visits caused by O'Grady's own incomplete or incorrect work, with no acknowledgment or refund offered by the company.
• Review from 2024-06-17 describes a $950 charge for an unverified job, followed by a second $950 charge one month later for the same recurring problem, with no follow-up as promised — a significant project completion and pricing concern.
• Review from 2021-08-03 describes a kitchen being flooded twice due to technician negligence, overbilling, and complete failure to respond to damage complaints — a serious multi-dimension failure.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Only approximately 25–30 reviews are from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), and many of those lack substantive text. Scores are therefore influenced heavily by older reviews.
• Two reviews (2019) are about reckless driving by O'Grady vehicles and were not scored for plumbing dimensions but reflect negatively on company culture and professionalism.

This WW Score is based on a large review set spanning nearly 20 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weight recent substantive reviews more heavily and be aware that recurring complaints about no-shows, poor follow-through, and pricing disputes represent a genuine and documented pattern of service inconsistency.

R&R Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. Recent reviews from approximately 2023–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians (Brandon, Raffi, Cristian, Javier, Tyler, Daniel, Berto) for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial volume of older reviews — particularly from 2015–2019 and largely tied to Lowe's subcontracted appliance installations — describe severe failures in communication, repeated no-shows, abandoned jobs, and rude or incompetent technicians. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because no-shows, abandoned installs, and unresolved callbacks are explicitly documented across dozens of reviews. Pricing scores moderately well overall, with several recent reviewers praising fair or competitive rates, though at least two reviews explicitly flag overpricing. The experience dimension scores higher than completion because when technicians did show up in recent years, workmanship was generally praised.

• TEMPORAL SPLIT WARNING: The review corpus spans 2005–2025. Reviews from 2015–2019 are predominantly 1-star and describe a fundamentally different operational profile (Lowe's subcontract work, chronic no-shows, no callbacks, abandoned jobs, property damage). Reviews from 2023–2025 are predominantly 5-star and describe a high-quality plumbing service. These may represent two distinct business eras or operational contexts and should not be averaged without caution.
• POSSIBLE DUAL-ENTITY ISSUE: Several negative reviews reference Lowe's appliance installation subcontracting (dishwashers, microwaves, cooktops), while positive reviews reference direct plumbing service calls. It is possible this is the same company operating in two different capacities, or that the Yelp/Google profile aggregates reviews for related but distinct service lines.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-08 (approximately 10 reviews within 2 days) contain very brief, generic praise with no specifics ('Friendly and reliable service', 'Good work and professional!', 'Great service, thank you', 'A++'). Several are blank text with only a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence in the most recent cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 15 reviews explicitly describe technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notice, or abandoning jobs mid-completion. This is a significant project completion risk signal, though concentrated in the 2015–2019 period.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE REPORTED: At least 2 reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (flooded cabinets, cracked toilet, holes in drywall) with disputed or no resolution. This is a serious workmanship and liability flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive, detailed reviews are from 2023–2025 and fall within the past 12–24 months. The majority of negative reviews are from 2015–2019, now 5–10 years old. The WW Score reflects the full corpus but recent performance appears substantially improved.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability for recent plumbing service engagements (2023–2025), but should be treated with significant caution due to a large volume of historically severe negative reviews from the 2015–2019 Lowe's subcontract era, suspected review padding in the most recent cluster, and documented instances of property damage and job abandonment that meaningfully depress the project completion dimension.