Find Nearby Plumbers In Durham, North Carolina

EB Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on three reviews spanning 2019–2022. Professionalism is consistently praised (punctuality, communication, explanation of work, personable demeanor). Pricing is described as fair and reasonable with transparent guidance on necessary versus optional work. Project completion is reliable with quick turnaround and high-quality finishes. Experience is evident through skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, and ability to recommend appropriate replacements. However, all scores are based on only 3 reviews, limiting statistical confidence.

• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or complaints — this is atypical and warrants caution
• Review dates span 2019–2022 (oldest review is 3+ years old); no recent reviews from past 12 months to confirm current service quality
• Small sample size (n=3) means any single negative review would significantly alter the score
• Reviews lack specific detail on pricing (no dollar amounts or comparisons) and project scope is limited to routine repairs/installations

This WW Score of 89.2 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and absence of recent data; while all available reviews are positive and consistent, a larger and more recent dataset is needed to establish reliable confidence in this contractor's current performance.

Alternative Plumbing Services (Gene Smith) receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions from its 7 reviewers. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with every reviewer noting punctuality, clear communication, courteous attitude, and honest dealings — including multiple explicit mentions of Gene not attempting to upsell or overcharge. Pricing is praised as fair and transparent across four reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting he was not charged for a non-issue and another calling charges 'certainly fair.' Project completion scores well, with reviewers describing jobs finished promptly and a callback honored the very next morning after a follow-up issue arose. Experience and technical knowledge are highlighted in six reviews, covering a range of work from water heater replacement to recirculating pump diagnosis to specialty system installation, all described as competent and high quality.

• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details, named individuals, and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review recency concern: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2021), 3 are from 2020, 1 from 2018, and 1 from 2015. The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, which limits confidence in reflecting current service quality.
• Small sample size of 7 reviews means individual outlier experiences are not represented. Scores should be interpreted with caution until more recent reviews are available.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the specificity and consistency of the reviews, but should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, all-5-star rating pattern, and the fact that most reviews are more than 3 years old.

Johnson Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven by strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion. The company excels in experience and skill level (82.5), with numerous reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. Professionalism scores well at 78.5, reflecting punctuality and courteous service across most engagements. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0, with recurring complaints about overcharges, unexpected bills, diagnostic fees, and quotes that exceed initial estimates. Project completion is reliable at 79.0, though some customers report incomplete work or callbacks needed. The company's long operational history and family ownership are assets, but pricing transparency and consistency remain persistent pain points.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Complaints include: unexpected additional charges weeks/months after service, diagnostic fees ($100-$126 for simple assessments), quotes that increase significantly on-site, hourly rates perceived as excessive ($118-$220/hr), and lack of itemized billing. Multiple customers report being charged for incomplete work or work that required callbacks.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians (Ken, Rodney, Brad, Eric, Jason), others report incompetent work from unnamed technicians, suggesting quality varies significantly by individual. Some customers had to hire second plumbers to redo work.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) describe delayed invoicing (bills arriving 4+ months after service), surprise charges, and threats of collection action. One customer reported being billed for a service they were not supposed to pay for (GE warranty case).
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews mention promised callbacks that never occurred, estimates that were never provided, and poor communication from dispatch/office staff.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 1-star reviews (approximately 25 total) cluster around pricing disputes, incomplete work, rude staff behavior, and failure to honor commitments. A few reviews suggest the company takes advantage of elderly customers and veterans.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which contrasts sharply with 2020-2023 reviews that contain more critical feedback. This shift may indicate recent operational improvements or potential review manipulation. Recommend treating very recent reviews with moderate caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (no text, 5-star rating) and several generic single-word reviews ('Great!', 'Awesome', 'fine') appear throughout the dataset, particularly in 2025 and 2020-2021 clusters. This pattern is consistent with review padding, though not conclusive.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable for understanding Johnson Plumbing's overall performance, supported by 287 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant variability: the company delivers strong technical work and responsiveness but has persistent, well-documented pricing issues that materially impact customer satisfaction. Prospective customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm pricing before work begins, and request itemized invoices to mitigate financial risk. The recent surge in 5-star reviews warrants cautious interpretation.

Bar D Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, with many reviewers citing punctuality, clear communication, and courteous technicians across a large number of reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with one standout review noting savings of $1,000–$1,200 versus competitors, though one older review raised concerns about overcharging and a lack of transparency. Project completion is solid overall, but is meaningfully dragged down by two serious negative incidents: a 2020 pipe failure causing approximately $12,000 in damage followed by the contractor becoming unresponsive, and a 2025 complaint about poor diagnostic assessment leading to an unnecessary and more expensive repair approach. Experience scores well across the recent reviews, with technicians praised for problem-solving and technical knowledge, but the 2020 workmanship failure and the 2025 misdiagnosis prevent a higher score. The WW Score reflects a contractor with genuinely strong recent performance tempered by documented historical failures in accountability and workmanship.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review describing a pipe failure causing $12,000 in damage (Brad, 2020) appears twice with identical text and different timestamps — one entry dated 2020-01-31 17:45:50 and another dated 2020-01-31 00:00:00. This was counted only once to avoid double-weighting.
• 8 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. This pattern of blank 5-star reviews is a mild fake review risk signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several negative reviews are from 2015–2020 and involve a plumber named 'Brad,' while most recent reviews (2023–2025) reference technicians named Dalton, Blake, Alex, and Kyle. This may indicate a change in ownership, staffing, or business structure. Older negative reviews may not reflect current operations but cannot be dismissed entirely.
• SERIOUS ACCOUNTABILITY FLAG: The 2020 1-star review describes a contractor (Brad) who caused significant water damage through a workmanship failure and then became unresponsive to the customer's attempts to resolve the insurance shortfall. This is a significant red flag for accountability and follow-through.
• MINOR FOLLOW-THROUGH FLAG: A 2025 review (updated to 4 stars) documents a failure to deliver promised estimates on time, requiring owner intervention to resolve. This suggests occasional gaps in administrative follow-through.
• MISDIAGNOSIS FLAG: A 2025 1-star review describes a Bar D plumber recommending unnecessary sheetrock cutting when a simpler diagnostic step (removing the fan) would have identified the leak source at lower cost. This raises a limited concern about diagnostic thoroughness.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several short reviews (e.g., 'Efficient, hard-working, and trustworthy!', 'Prompt, efficient and trustworthy.', 'Great customer service') use vague, non-specific language. While not conclusive, the clustering of these reviews around the same dates (2025-05-10) warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable data and carries HIGH overall confidence, but readers should weigh the serious 2020 workmanship and accountability failure carefully, note the possible business/personnel transition between older and newer reviews, and be aware that 8 blank 5-star reviews and several generic short reviews introduce a minor inflation risk.

Associated Plumbing receives strong praise from the majority of recent reviewers for fast response times, same-day service, and friendly technicians, which drives solid scores in professionalism and project completion. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning billing disputes, overcharging, incomplete diagnoses, rude staff, and a court judgment against the company — prevents any dimension from scoring in the high 80s or above. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several customers praised affordability, multiple reviewers explicitly described hidden charges, bait-and-switch billing, charging travel time without disclosure, and labor costs they considered outrageous. Project completion is similarly mixed, with several reviews describing work that had to be redone, problems left unresolved, or a no-show after confirmation. The score reflects a contractor with a genuinely strong base of satisfied repeat customers but a documented pattern of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• 4 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great as usual!', 'Very skilled and pleasant', 'Service was outstanding!') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, they add limited evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• A notable cluster of 1-star reviews describes serious issues: billing fraud (charging more time than worked, bait-and-switch estimates), a court judgment against the company, work that had to be redone, a no-show after confirming arrival, and a receptionist described as rude and unhelpful. These are specific, credible, and materially impact all dimension scores.
• Recency note: The majority of negative reviews are from 2011–2019, while most positive reviews are from 2024–2025. This suggests possible improvement over time, but the 2024 billing dispute review (charging for more time than worked) and the 2024 refusal to quote an $8,000+ job indicate some issues persist. Older negative reviews were weighted slightly less but not dismissed.
• One reviewer explicitly states they verified with tenants and text messages that the company charged for more time than technicians were actually on-site — a serious billing integrity concern that was not addressed by the owner publicly.
• The owner was noted by one reviewer as not responding to negative reviews, which reduces confidence in accountability and dispute resolution.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with a wide date range (2011–2025) and a clear split between a strong majority of positive recent reviews and a credible minority of serious negative reviews; the score is moderately reliable but should be interpreted with caution given documented billing disputes and incomplete work complaints.

Professionalism scores reasonably well across a large number of reviews, with many customers praising individual technicians for being polite, punctual, and communicative — however, multiple serious complaints about dispatcher failures, a technician smelling of cigarettes, and a manager with a dismissive attitude prevent a higher score. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with multiple credible, detailed reviews describing quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors or market rates, aggressive upselling, and in two cases charges for work that was never completed — this is a significant and recurring pattern. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but there are documented cases of work left incomplete, original problems never resolved, a technician who promised to return and never did, and a company that failed to show up on a scheduled day entirely. Experience scores moderately, with many reviewers praising individual technicians as knowledgeable and skilled, but offset by cases where diagnoses were later found to be incorrect by second-opinion providers, and one instance where a repair was made worse.

• PRICING CONCERN — RECURRING PATTERN: Multiple independent, detailed reviews (1-star and 2-star) describe quotes that were 2x–10x higher than competitor or DIY costs. Examples include: $10,000 system replacement that a second opinion said was unnecessary; $1,100 drain pipe replacement that the homeowner completed with a $50 kit from Lowes; $700+ pressure regulator install quoted at over $250/hour in labor; $545 camera inspection for 35 feet of a 75-foot job. This is not isolated — it is a documented pattern.
• PREDATORY UPSELLING CONCERN: At least two detailed reviews describe technicians diagnosing problems that did not exist (septic pump 'not working' — second opinion found it fine for $50; water filtration system 'needing replacement' — second opinion said it was working fine). One reviewer explicitly states the company uses upselling as a primary business tactic and that the original problem was never fixed.
• CHARGING FOR UNPERFORMED WORK: One detailed 1-star review describes being charged $265 (reduced from $460) for a repair that was never performed, under pressure from both the technician and a manager. This is a serious allegation of fraudulent billing.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACK FAILURE: One reviewer describes a technician who created unnecessary wall damage, promised to return off-the-clock to fix it, never returned, and then charged an additional $280 to clear debris the technician had washed down the drain. Another reviewer describes the original service call problem never being resolved after paying ~$2,300.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURE: One review describes a dispatcher (Stephanie) repeatedly lying about technician arrival times and eventually stopping answering calls. A separate review describes the company never responding after initial contact, forcing the customer to use another company.
• FAKE REVIEW / THIN REVIEW FLAG: 13 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These have been excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data. Additionally, several very short reviews ('Great service', 'Great technician', 'Kind friendly helpful prompt') are generic and unverifiable, though not conclusively fake.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2025 and 2024, which is positive for recency weighting. However, the most serious negative reviews (fraudulent billing, predatory tactics, incomplete work) span from 2020 through 2025, suggesting these are not isolated historical incidents but ongoing patterns.
• REVIEW DATE ANOMALY: Multiple reviews share the exact same date (e.g., 2025-06-09, 2025-04-10, 2025-05-10) with several entries per date. While this could reflect a batch-import of reviews, it warrants noting as a minor data quality flag.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (78 total, 65 with usable data) and carries HIGH overall confidence in terms of sample size, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to a well-documented, multi-year pattern of pricing complaints, upselling allegations, and at least one credible account of charging for unperformed work — factors that meaningfully suppress the pricing and project completion dimensions and reflect genuine business practice risks for prospective customers.