Find Nearby Plumbers In Burlington, North Carolina

Nancy's Plumbing and Pennington Plumbing both receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, responsiveness, clear communication, and courteous technicians by name (Chris, Ricky, Ricardo, Matt, Ron). Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviewers noting same-day or next-day service, jobs finished completely, and follow-through on complex multi-step work. Pricing feedback is generally favorable, with several reviewers noting competitive or below-market quotes, though one reviewer explicitly noted prices can feel high relative to time on the job, which moderately tempers the pricing score. Experience and workmanship are praised across a wide range of job types including water heaters, slab plumbing, water softeners, and emergency repairs, reflecting a technically capable team. The overall picture is of two well-regarded plumbing operations with consistent, high-quality service delivery.

• 13 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• This review set appears to contain reviews for TWO distinct businesses: 'Nancy's Plumbing' and 'Pennington Plumbing.' These have been analyzed together as submitted, but the WW Score may not accurately represent either business individually. Scores should be interpreted with caution.
• Several older Pennington Plumbing reviews date back to 2006–2015, which is well outside the 12-month recency window. These were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of Nancy's Plumbing reviews are from 2024–2025 and carry full recency weight.
• Two reviews (2015-02-10 refrigerator installation, 2015-05-21 built-in refrigerator) appear to reference a Santa Clara-based appliance company, not a plumbing contractor. These were treated as low-relevance outliers.
• All reviews are 5-star (with one 4-star exception), which is statistically unusual across 65 reviews. While individual reviews contain specific names, job details, and credible narratives, the near-perfect rating distribution warrants mild caution regarding platform-level selection bias or review curation.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for Nancy's Plumbing's recent performance (2024–2025), but is diluted by the inclusion of a second unrelated business (Pennington Plumbing), 13 text-free reviews, and a cluster of reviews older than five years — consumers should treat this as a directional indicator rather than a precise benchmark.

Stellar Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, earning a WW Score of 84.2. The company excels in professionalism (87.5), with extensive evidence of punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians across 287 reviews. Experience is also a clear strength (86.0), with 201 mentions highlighting skilled, knowledgeable technicians who solve complex problems efficiently. Project completion scores well at 85.5 with 198 mentions confirming timely, thorough work. Pricing is the relative weak point at 81.0, though still solid, with 156 mentions showing generally fair rates but occasional complaints about unexpected charges or estimates that increased significantly during work. The company's consistency across multiple technicians (Duane, Curtis, Gus, Carlos, Jeff, and others) and geographic locations suggests a strong operational foundation.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (future dates) with suspiciously generic praise and identical 5-star ratings with minimal detail suggest potential review manipulation or data entry errors. These 6 reviews lack specificity compared to authentic reviews.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 8 reviews (1-star and 2-3 star ratings) explicitly mention overcharging, unexpected price increases mid-job, or bills 40-60% higher than initial estimates. One review documents a bill 60% higher than agreed price; another reports $1,600 charged for work another plumber completed in 30 minutes.
• PROFESSIONALISM GAPS: 5 reviews document poor follow-up (no callbacks for days/weeks), one instance of threatening legal action over a quote dispute, and one report of technician arriving with dirty boots and laying dirty tools on customer's counters.
• LICENSING/COMPLIANCE ISSUES: One 2020 review explicitly states 'Not a licensed contractor' appears on company website; another 2015 review documents illegal gas line work and permit violations that resulted in gas company shutoff.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2014-2015) document significant rework required due to code violations, improper fittings, and poor workmanship by certain technicians, suggesting variable quality depending on which technician is assigned.
• RECENCY NOTE: Majority of reviews are from 2018-2025 with strong concentration in 2024-2025, indicating recent high volume of business. However, the 6 future-dated reviews from June 2025 are anomalous and reduce confidence slightly.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable based on 515 usable reviews with strong data across all dimensions, but customers should be aware that pricing transparency and consistency appear to be genuine weak points, and technician quality varies—requesting specific experienced technicians (Duane, Curtis, Gus) by name may improve outcomes based on review patterns.

Poseidon Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with pricing and technical experience being particular strengths — numerous reviewers explicitly noted prices were lower than competitors, and several praised the team's diagnostic and problem-solving skills on complex jobs like slab leaks, gas lines, and repiping. Professionalism scores are strong but tempered by a recurring pattern of no-shows and failure to call back, documented in at least 5 separate negative reviews spanning 2014–2015, which meaningfully drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. Project completion is the weakest dimension due to these documented instances of missed appointments, abandoned camera work, and a license suspension flag raised in one review. The bulk of reviews are older (2013–2018), with a smaller cluster of recent 2024 reviews that are largely positive, suggesting the business may have improved but the historical record cannot be ignored.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-09-12 and the review dated 2024-08-30 are word-for-word identical ('I had a terrible experience with a previous GC who did not fix a pipe leak...'). This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially duplicated review. One instance was excluded from scoring weight.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (2013-06-12 and 2013-05-10) are word-for-word identical ('David Miller is honest, hardworking, the perfect plumber...'). This suggests review manipulation or accidental duplication.
• LICENSE WARNING: One reviewer (2015-08-07, 1-star) explicitly claims Poseidon's license #982419 was suspended pending disciplinary action at the time of posting. This is a serious flag that could not be verified from review data alone but warrants independent verification before hiring.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviews (2014-04-07, 2015-02-05, 2015-01-24, 2015-05-01) describe David or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without calling, or showing up very late with poor excuses. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of reviews (approximately 55 of 72) are from 2013–2018, which is more than 6 years old. Only a small cluster of reviews exists from 2023–2024. Scores are weighted toward recent data where possible, but the overall picture is heavily influenced by older reviews.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews (both dated 2018-06-11) contain no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 5-STAR EXCEPT NEGATIVES: The review set is heavily polarized — nearly all reviews are 5-star with no 2, 3, or 4-star reviews (only one 4-star exists). While the negative reviews are credible and specific, the absence of mid-range ratings is a mild flag for potential platform selection bias.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously due to documented no-show incidents, a license suspension flag, and two confirmed duplicate reviews that suggest some degree of review manipulation; independent verification of the current license status and recent references is strongly recommended before hiring.

GR Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and clean appearance across 32 reviews. Project completion is reliable with 26 mentions of timely work and problem-solving, though one callback issue was noted. Experience is solid with 15 mentions of technical knowledge and quality workmanship. Pricing is the weakest dimension (73.0) with 11 mentions revealing mixed feedback—some customers praise fair pricing and no upselling, while others report costs significantly exceeding expectations or being triple competitors' rates. The company's score is anchored by strong professionalism and completion reliability, but pricing inconsistency and occasional service gaps (missed pipe, late arrival) prevent a higher overall score.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 40 of 47 reviews are from 2016 (dated 2016-10-26), with only 7 reviews from 2018-2023. This severely limits the relevance of the dataset to current service quality. Recent reviews (2019-2023) are uniformly 5-star with detailed positive feedback, while older bulk reviews show more variance.
• RATING INCONSISTENCY: 40 reviews dated 2016-10-26 show 0.0 rating despite positive text content, suggesting data export or platform error rather than actual 0-star ratings. This creates ambiguity in interpreting review sentiment.
• PRICING VOLATILITY: Conflicting pricing narratives across reviews—some praise 'reasonable' and 'honest' pricing with no upselling, while others report costs 2-3x higher than competitors or unexpected price increases. This suggests either significant price variation by job type or inconsistent pricing communication.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEWS: 5 reviews contain no text or only placeholder text ('No comments', 'N/A', 'i used leak free'), reducing usable data quality.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Two detailed negative reviews (2016) cite expensive pricing, messy work, property damage, and missed defects on first visit. These are substantive complaints that lower confidence in consistency.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while recent reviews (2019-2023) are consistently positive and detailed, the dataset is heavily skewed toward 2016 data with technical rating anomalies, and pricing feedback is contradictory enough to suggest either service inconsistency or communication gaps that warrant direct inquiry before hiring.

Advanced Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including water line replacements, water heater installs, and full repiping projects. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — raises serious concerns: recurring complaints include overcharging with non-itemized bills, pressure tactics, failure to return calls, incomplete or incorrect work, refusal to warranty poor workmanship, and in several cases hostile responses from ownership when customers raised concerns. Pricing is a particular weak point, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, minimum fees for minimal work, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs that required multiple return visits to correct errors, or work that was abandoned entirely. The positive reviews are numerous and often detailed, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews — including from experienced professionals in construction and architecture — prevent a high overall score.

• 35 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates with the same wording about being 'absolutely amazing' and 'super sharp on plumbing needs' posted under different dates (2022-09-23 and 2023-06-07). This may indicate a fake or recycled review.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates praising 'Eric and Jessica' and 'Fred' with nearly word-for-word identical text posted on different dates (2018-08-22 and 2019-06-08). This strongly suggests a fake or copy-pasted review and confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under the name 'Advanced Plumbing' across different states (Virginia, Florida, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, California, Texas). Scores from geographically distinct businesses may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• Several negative reviews describe the owner or staff becoming hostile, making harassing phone calls, or calling customers liars when complaints were raised — a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One negative reviewer with 50+ years of architectural experience describes deceptive practices including faulty leak detection, pressure to over-scope work, and an inadequate insurance report — this carries elevated credibility weight.
• A 2010 review describes a lawsuit over a billing dispute where the written estimate was $1,300 but the final bill was $4,300 — an extreme pricing discrepancy that was never resolved through mediation.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2017–2025, with the most recent cluster from 2024–2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) were given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence that reviews may span multiple unrelated businesses sharing the same name, the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and a persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and hostile customer service responses that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.

Don Potts receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising his punctuality, responsiveness, and communication — including same-day callbacks and on-time arrivals. Project completion is generally solid, with jobs described as finished quickly and thoroughly, though one reviewer noted toilets required readjustment across multiple return visits, which slightly tempers that dimension. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as 'reasonable' and 'low price,' but the limited mentions prevent a high-confidence score there. Experience is supported by references to knowledgeability and going above and beyond, though specifics are sparse. Overall, the picture is positive but the score is moderated by the age of the reviews — the majority are from 2007 to 2017, with nothing in the past several years.

• 3 of 12 reviews contain only 'unknown' as review text and provide no usable data — these were excluded from scoring.
• All reviews are older than 6 years as of 2024; the most recent usable review is from June 2017. Recency is a significant concern — current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• All ratings are 4.0 or 5.0 with no negative reviews present. While this may reflect genuine quality, the absence of any critical feedback across 12 reviews warrants mild caution.
• Some reviews use generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'wonderful man,' 'one of a kind'), which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points, though most reviews do include at least one concrete detail.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small usable review set, complete absence of reviews from the past 6+ years, and three reviews with no usable content — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.