Find Nearby Plumbers In Fayetteville, North Carolina

NuBlue/Ease Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising friendliness, punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across many years of reviews. Project completion is also solid, with most jobs described as finished efficiently and on time, and at least one notable instance of the company returning at no charge to make a job right. Experience scores well given repeated mentions of knowledgeable technicians who explained issues clearly and solved difficult problems other plumbers could not. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers explicitly called the company expensive, one declined service due to cost, one alleged overcharging of $350 for 20 minutes of work, one reported a $756 bill they felt was excessive, and one reported being denied an itemized breakdown — these are serious and recurring concerns that substantially lower the pricing dimension. The WW Score of approximately 79 reflects a company that delivers quality, professional service but carries a meaningful and consistent pattern of pricing complaints that prospective customers should investigate carefully.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: At least 8 reviews explicitly flag pricing as expensive, excessive, or unfair. One reviewer was charged $350 for 20 minutes of work and reported the owner did not return calls. Another paid $756.86 for a drain clearing and believed it was excessive after researching market rates. One reviewer was denied an itemized bill breakdown. One declined service entirely due to cost. This is a statistically significant and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two reviews dated 2022-04-13 and 2022-04-15 are nearly word-for-word identical (Hal and Jose review). This appears to be the same review submitted twice. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2020-01-29 (six reviews on the same day) use very similar generic praise language with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution. Confidence is not reduced to LOW but this is noted.
• ONE REVIEW IS UNINTELLIGIBLE: The review consisting only of '************' (2020-06-26) provides no usable data and was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2019 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) remain consistent with historical patterns. No significant quality decline or improvement trend detected in recent reviews.
• INCOMPLETE JOB FLAG: One review (2022-06-10, rating 0.5) explicitly states the technician could not complete the job — unable to drill to locate a leak or open the wall to find damage. This is a project completion failure and was factored into the project completion score.
• DISHONESTY FLAG: One review (2024-01-02, rating 3.0) alleges a technician lied about running a camera and attempted to upsell a $15,000 job that was not needed. The reviewer obtained a second opinion and saved thousands. This is a serious integrity concern and was weighted accordingly.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (125) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence overall; however, the recurring and specific pricing complaints — including alleged overcharging, lack of billing transparency, and one allegation of dishonest upselling — represent a material risk that the score alone does not fully capture, and prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain itemized quotes in writing before authorizing any work.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise punctuality, courteous crew behavior, and responsive communication, driving a solid professionalism score — however, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 10–12 out of 95) specifically cite missed appointments, failure to return calls, and unresponsiveness after estimates, which meaningfully depresses that dimension below the 90s. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable, competitive, or the best among multiple quotes, with only isolated complaints about unexpected charges or feeling overpriced, yielding a strong but not perfect pricing score. Project completion is generally positive — most jobs were finished on time or early — but several reviews flag incomplete work, abandoned callbacks, a crew that left debris and nails behind, wrong materials installed, and one instance where a separate contractor had to finish the job, pulling this score down noticeably. Workmanship quality is broadly praised across dozens of reviews with specific detail (magnetic nail sweeps, attic inspections, going above and beyond scope), though a few reviews note poor-quality outcomes including a wavy roof, unmatched textures, and broken equipment, moderating the experience score. The review set spans from 2011 to 2017, with the most recent reviews dating to 2017, meaning all data is more than 7 years old and should be treated with caution regarding current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 7 YEARS: The most recent review is dated 2017-11-08 and the oldest is 2011-06-30. This score reflects historical performance only and should not be assumed to represent current quality or business practices.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN OF CONCERN: At least 8–10 reviews explicitly describe the contractor failing to return calls, missing estimate appointments, or going silent after initial contact. This is a recurring and specific pattern, not isolated incidents.
• CREW QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One detailed 2011 review describes a substandard crew that left nails everywhere, skipped contracted work (tar paper), and caused a flat tire and foot injury. The owner acknowledged the issue but was not on-site supervising. This suggests crew quality may vary significantly.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAGGED: At least 2 reviews note that agreed-upon work was not fully completed, requiring the homeowner to hire another contractor or do the work themselves.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The volume of 5-star reviews with specific, detailed narratives reduces fake review suspicion significantly. However, a small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Very user friendly, fast and dependable.', 'it went well pleased with the work.') lack enough detail to be fully weighted. No action taken beyond noting this.
• BUSINESS NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference at least three different business names — 'Precision Home Repair', 'All American Home Improvements', and 'All American Home Renovations'. This may indicate the same owner operating under multiple entities over time, or reviews from different businesses being aggregated. Scores reflect the combined pool as presented.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (95 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust in terms of volume — however, reliability is significantly reduced by the fact that all reviews are 7 or more years old, a recurring pattern of responsiveness failures appears across multiple independent reviewers, and the contractor appears to have operated under at least two or three different business names, raising questions about whether these reviews reflect a single consistent business entity.

Staten Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism and project completion are particularly well-documented, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, thoroughness, and follow-through on complex jobs. Pricing is perceived as fair and transparent, though mentioned less frequently. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident from detailed descriptions of problem-solving and quality outcomes. The WW Score of 88.2 reflects reliable, professional service delivery.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — this uniformity warrants caution, though reviews contain specific details and vary in language/context enough to suggest authenticity rather than fabrication.
• Review dates span 2015–2022, with 4 of 6 reviews older than 3 years (2017 or earlier). Only 2 reviews from 2018 onward. Recency is limited; current performance cannot be fully assessed.
• Sample size is small (n=6). Confidence in overall score is moderate due to limited volume, despite high confidence in individual dimensions.

This score should be treated as moderately reliable. While individual dimension scores are well-supported by explicit evidence, the small sample size and age of most reviews limit the ability to assess current performance or detect potential issues that may have emerged in recent years.

Clear Choice Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality (same-day/next-day service), friendliness, and responsiveness across 5 reviews. Project completion is solid with multiple jobs finished quickly and completely, though one review noted minor collateral damage (broken tile). Pricing is favorable, with customers noting fair rates, quotes beaten, and good value—mentioned in 4 reviews. Experience and workmanship quality are evident, with customers describing meticulous work, quick problem-solving, and confidence in technical ability. The primary concern is review recency: most reviews are 3+ years old (2011–2021), with only one from 2023, limiting confidence in current service levels.

• Review recency concern: 5 of 6 reviews are from 2011–2021; only 1 review from past 12 months (2023). Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• All reviews are 5-star or 4-star with no critical feedback beyond one minor tile damage incident. While not necessarily fake, the uniformly positive tone with minimal specificity in some reviews warrants caution.
• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical confidence despite high mention counts within that sample.

This WW Score of 87.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to limited review recency and small sample size; while the available data is consistently positive, the lack of recent feedback makes it difficult to assess current service quality with high confidence.

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.

CM Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on consistent responsiveness, same-day service, and friendly customer interactions across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores well in the majority of reviews but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative incidents: a worker accused of peering into a bedroom window, a no-show appointment with a full voicemail box, repeated lateness, a gas leak left after a repair, a disputed and potentially dishonest diagnosis of a toilet flange, and one reviewer citing unprofessional work at an overpriced rate. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but two reviews cite overcharging and one describes a grossly inflated estimate for unnecessary work, preventing a higher score. Project completion is solid — most jobs are described as finished same-day and efficiently — but the gas leak callback failure, the no-show, and the disputed home warranty contractor incident introduce meaningful risk. Experience scores moderately well given praise for technical competence and problem-solving, but the gas leak left after a fitting replacement and the misdiagnosed toilet flange are serious quality red flags that temper confidence.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-07-15 (23:09 and 23:11) are word-for-word identical, praising Franklin and Samuel. This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially boosted review. One instance was excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews attributed to Josh and his spouse about a broken attic water line (one dated 2019-12-31, one dated 2020-06-10) are nearly word-for-word identical. Likely the same reviewer posting twice or a planted review.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2020-10-05) alleges a CM Plumbing worker was caught peeping into her bedroom window. This is an unverified but serious allegation that prospective customers should be aware of.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2018-06-11) reports a gas leak was left after a fitting replacement, discovered 5 days later. The company's response was reportedly only 'I'm sorry.' This represents a significant workmanship and safety failure.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSIS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2020-06-10) reports being quoted $680 for a toilet flange replacement that turned out to be a $4 wax ring fix, suggesting a potentially fraudulent or grossly incompetent diagnosis.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY FAILURE: One reviewer (2015-12-22) reports a scheduled 7am appointment where no one showed and the voicemail was full. Another reviewer (2017-03-07) reports significant lateness and a $300/hour effective labor rate.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Many reviews date back to 2011–2020. While volume is high, a significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Recent reviews (2023–2024) are more positive and suggest possible improvement, but older negative patterns should not be dismissed.
• OVERPRICING COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2020-08-10) describes $350 for one hour of work as steep and unprofessional. Another (2017-03-07) calculated an effective rate of ~$300/hour. These are outliers but notable.
• UNVERIFIED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT: The lengthy 1-star review (2020-03-05) appears to be primarily a complaint about First American Home Warranty, not directly about CM Plumbing's workmanship. It was given reduced weight but noted for the allegation that a CM Plumbing technician misrepresented the cause of damage.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews (62 total) spanning 13 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but prospective customers should weigh the serious qualitative flags — including a safety allegation, a confirmed gas leak callback failure, a suspected fraudulent diagnosis, and duplicate reviews — which meaningfully limit how much the numerical score alone should be trusted.