Find Nearby Plumbers In Cary, North Carolina

Aqua Plumbing and Rick Marion receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and willingness to go above and beyond (including weekend and vacation-time responses). Pricing is described as fair, honest, and transparent across many reviews, with one detailed comparison showing Rick completing three jobs for $196 versus a competitor's quote of over $1,000. Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished quickly, cleanly, and with follow-through on callbacks and warranty issues. Experience and workmanship are praised extensively, with Rick described as a third-generation master plumber who diagnoses problems accurately and solves them efficiently. Two negative or mixed reviews temper the score slightly: one 1-star review citing no callback on a serious issue, and one 3-star review citing unresponsiveness during a project and a disputed claim about a faucet component.

• 9 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or extremely minimal text (e.g., 'Very well.', 'One word!! EXCELLENT') and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants mild fake-review awareness scrutiny. However, most reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied phrasing, which reduces the likelihood of systematic fabrication.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2007–2019. Recency weighting was applied: the 12 reviews from 2024–2025 were given higher weight in scoring, and they remain consistently positive, suggesting sustained quality.
• One 1-star review (2022) describes two unreturned voicemails for a serious plumbing issue — a notable responsiveness failure that was factored into the professionalism score.
• One 3-star review (2019) describes unresponsiveness during a project, a refusal to install a customer-supplied disposal, and an alleged false statement about a faucet component — this was factored into both professionalism and experience scores.
• The reviewer named 'Scott' in one review (2013) may refer to a different technician, not Rick — this review was included but noted as potentially referencing a different worker.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and consistent recent positive feedback, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — though users should note that two credible negative reviews raise minor concerns about responsiveness and honesty in isolated incidents.

Full Stack Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 38 reviews. Project completion is solid at 81.0, though tempered by several documented instances of incomplete work, no-shows, and communication failures. Pricing presents a significant concern, with multiple reviews citing unexpected charges, lack of transparency, overcharging, and aggressive collection practices—reducing confidence in value proposition. Technical experience is strong at 85.0, with technicians demonstrating good problem-solving and workmanship. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects a company with reliable execution but meaningful vulnerabilities in pricing transparency and accountability.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) document unexpected charges, lack of itemization, upcharges without communication, and aggressive collection tactics. One customer reported being threatened with lawsuit for disputing charges.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Four 1-star reviews document no-shows (three separate occasions), incomplete work, failure to follow instructions, and abandoned jobs. One review explicitly states customer was rescheduled three times with no explanation.
• WAIVER CONCERNS: One detailed 2023 review warns of overreaching liability waivers presented after work completion with no advance review time, limiting customer recourse.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most recent reviews (2025, past 6 months) are overwhelmingly positive 5-star ratings with minimal detail. Older reviews (2020-2023) contain more balanced feedback and critical detail. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 13 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text. These provide no actionable data and may indicate review padding.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly detailed positive reviews praising specific technicians (JJ, Corey, Trey, CW) and detailed negative reviews citing systemic issues (billing, scheduling, communication). Suggests quality varies significantly by technician or situation.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 38+ mentions, the pricing dimension is based on only 12 mentions and reveals serious systemic concerns (unexpected charges, lack of transparency, aggressive collection). The recent flood of minimal-detail 5-star reviews contrasts sharply with older, detailed reviews documenting significant problems. The WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for professionalism and experience, but customers should independently verify pricing practices and obtain detailed, itemized estimates before engaging this contractor.

Dan Allen receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly mentioned quality — reviewers highlight punctuality, courteous communication, and a friendly demeanor across all five reviews. Experience and project completion are well-supported by multiple reviews describing quick diagnosis, efficient work, and jobs completed fully within a single visit. Pricing data is limited to two mentions, but both are positive — one reviewer specifically notes cost-saving options were offered, which is a meaningful signal. All reviews are from early 2022, making them over two years old, which slightly tempers confidence in reflecting current performance.

• All 5 reviews share the same date range (2022-03-02 to 2022-03-04), with one dated 2022-02-28 — the clustering of review dates is unusual and may suggest a coordinated review submission rather than organic accumulation over time.
• All reviews are rated 5.0 with no negative feedback or constructive criticism of any kind, which warrants mild caution.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (from early 2022); no recent reviews are available to confirm current performance levels.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews), limiting the statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and date-clustered review set; the positive signals are genuine but should be validated with more recent and diverse customer feedback before making a high-confidence hiring decision.

Zoom Drain demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven primarily by excellent professionalism (82.5) and solid project completion rates (81.0). Technicians are consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with numerous customers citing costs as excessive or overpriced relative to work performed. Experience scores are solid (79.5), reflecting genuine expertise in drain and sewer work, though some customers report incomplete diagnostics or unnecessary upselling. The company shows strong responsiveness and same-day service availability, which customers value highly.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 156 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Many reviews explicitly state prices are 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples include $500+ for simple drain snaking, $638 for a quote without service, and $1000+ for jobs completed elsewhere for $200-300. This is the most frequently cited complaint.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 25 reviews document missed appointments, no-call/no-shows, or failure to meet promised time windows. Customers report waiting full appointment windows (4-6 hours) with no technician arrival and poor communication from dispatch.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews (15+) describe situations where initial service failed to fully resolve problems, requiring expensive return visits or customers hiring competitors to finish the job. Some customers report being charged for 'attempts' that didn't work.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Approximately 20 reviews suggest technicians recommend expensive solutions (full pipe replacement, hydro-jetting, etc.) when simpler/cheaper fixes would suffice. Some customers report being pressured into higher-cost options.
• DAMAGE AND LIABILITY ISSUES: At least 8 reviews document property damage (sprinkler pipes, water mains, driveways, electrical lines) caused by Zoom technicians, with the company refusing to cover repair costs or claiming 'not responsible per contract.'
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor follow-up (missing estimates, unreturned calls, no response to complaints), particularly from management and administrative staff.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician competence noted. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Johnny Rodriguez, Ian, Kyle, Maurice) while others describe inexperienced or unknowledgeable technicians sent to the same locations.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 80-100 reviews are extremely generic 5-star ratings with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!' 'Excellent!' 'Highly recommend!') and no substantive information. Many lack dates or contain identical phrasing. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews and specific complaints suggests these are not entirely fabricated—rather, the company may be actively soliciting reviews post-service (one review explicitly mentions aggressive review-hunting via text/call within 24 hours).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2023-2025 (past 12 months), with a concentration in June 2023 and January-June 2025. Older reviews (2014-2020) tend to be more positive, suggesting potential service quality decline or increased customer expectations.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple states (PA, CA, NJ, NC, TX, UT, CO, etc.), suggesting this is a franchise or multi-location operation. Quality and pricing may vary significantly by location.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while Zoom Drain demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism in technical execution, the consistent and detailed complaints about pricing (appearing in 13% of reviews) and scheduling failures (2% of reviews) represent material service gaps. The company excels at the core plumbing work but struggles with business operations and pricing transparency. Customers should obtain multiple quotes before engaging and clarify pricing in writing beforehand. The score reflects strong technical capability undermined by significant operational and pricing concerns.

Drain Masters demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual service, friendly technicians, and clear communication across 187 mentions. Project completion is solid at 81.0, with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, though some no-show incidents and warranty disputes appear in negative reviews. Experience scores well at 80.5, reflecting skilled technicians and effective problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0 across 89 mentions, with recurring complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, upselling, and quotes that don't match final bills. This pricing concern substantially impacts the overall WW Score despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees, and significant discrepancies between quoted and final prices. Examples include $250 quoted vs $573 charged, $2200 for water heater installation, and $400+ diagnostic fees. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Approximately 35 one-star and two-star reviews detail serious issues including flood damage from improper installation, unlicensed technicians, no-shows to scheduled appointments (multiple instances), and refusal to honor warranties. Several reviews mention BBB complaints and legal threats.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple locations (Santa Barbara, San Jose, Anchorage, Daytona, Modesto, Sacramento, St. Louis, etc.), suggesting either multiple franchises or locations under the same name. Some reviews explicitly warn about confusion between different Drain Masters companies.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews report warranty claims denied or disputed, with customers charged for follow-up visits on the same issue within warranty period.
• LICENSING CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews mention unlicensed or out-of-state licensed technicians performing work, raising legal and safety questions.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 reviews document scheduled appointments with no-shows and no communication, contradicting the strong professionalism scores.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW MARKERS: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the extremely high concentration of 5-star reviews (approximately 70% of total) combined with the severity and specificity of negative reviews suggests possible review manipulation or multiple business locations with vastly different quality standards.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and project completion scores are well-supported by 150+ mentions each, the pricing dimension reveals a systemic pattern of customer dissatisfaction that significantly undermines trust. The presence of serious negative reviews documenting flood damage, licensing violations, and no-shows, combined with geographic inconsistency and warranty disputes, suggests this company may have quality control or management issues that vary by location. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed, itemized written quotes and clarifying all fees upfront before engaging this company.

Eagle Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, reflecting a company with genuine strengths but also notable inconsistencies. Professionalism scores 78.5 based on 89 mentions, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, and communication—though a significant subset reports rude phone staff, no-shows, and late arrivals. Pricing scores 77.0 across 52 mentions; customers frequently cite fair and reasonable rates, though some object to parts markups and the $100 minimum service call fee. Project Completion scores 75.2 from 78 mentions, revealing a critical weakness: while many jobs are completed successfully, a substantial number of reviews document incomplete work, warranty disputes, poor craftsmanship, and failures requiring callbacks or outside contractors. Experience scores 80.5 from 68 mentions, with strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability consistently praised, though some reviews cite incompetence or misdiagnosis. The company shows a pattern of excellent work from certain technicians (Jeff, Tim, Victor, Kevin, Bob) alongside poor experiences with others and persistent phone-based customer service issues.

• CRITICAL: Two major negative reviews (Sept 2024, 0.5 and 1.0 stars) document severe project failures on a 4-plex replumbing job—trenched and cracked sewer line covered up without repair, dozens of installation errors, extended timeline (5+ weeks vs. 1.5 weeks promised), sloppy workmanship, and incomplete follow-through. These are detailed, specific, and credible complaints suggesting systemic quality control issues on larger projects.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2013–2021) report no-shows, missed appointment windows, and lack of communication despite scheduled service times. This pattern suggests operational/dispatch issues that persist across years.
• PATTERN: Recurring complaints about rude, dismissive, or sarcastic phone staff (multiple reviews mention 'Steve' and unnamed female receptionist with poor attitude). This is a consistent weak point in customer experience.
• PATTERN: Several reviews document warranty disputes, refusals to honor work guarantees, and demands that customers prove fault before service is provided at no charge.
• CONCERN: Reviews from 2024 show the company still operating, but the Sept 2024 4-plex disaster and earlier major failures suggest quality control remains inconsistent, particularly on complex/large jobs.
• RECENCY: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review platform changes. However, the Sept 2024 negative reviews are detailed and credible.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. Several reviews are blank (5-star with no text) or extremely generic ('Great job,' 'Wonderful,' 'unknown'). However, the majority of reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied experiences, suggesting authentic feedback overall. The pattern of detailed negative reviews alongside detailed positive ones supports authenticity.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: the company demonstrates genuine competence and customer satisfaction in routine jobs and with specific technicians, but exhibits serious inconsistencies in project completion quality, phone-based customer service, and performance on complex/large projects. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on technician assignment and job complexity, and should be prepared for potential communication friction and warranty disputes. The Sept 2024 4-plex failure is particularly concerning and suggests the company may struggle with scope management and quality oversight on larger engagements.