Find Nearby Plumbers In Fayetteville, North Carolina

All American Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. The most recent reviews (2024–2025, predominantly from what appears to be a San Diego-area operation) are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians like Lance, Mason, Elliott, JoJo, Justin, Ryan, and Nick for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2021, many referencing a technician named Robert and home warranty company assignments, likely a different geographic location or franchise) describes a pattern of serious failures: no-shows, misdiagnoses, rude office staff, abandoned jobs, overcharging, and dishonest reporting to home warranty companies. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems made worse, and failure to follow through. Pricing scores are mixed — recent customers praise fair and transparent quotes, while older customers describe significant overcharging and bait-and-switch tactics. The experience dimension similarly splits between highly skilled recent technicians and incompetent or fraudulent older service calls.

• CRITICAL: The review pool appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct business entities or locations operating under the name 'All American Plumbing.' Recent reviews (2024–2025) reference San Diego-area technicians and a clearly different operational culture from older reviews (2012–2021) that repeatedly reference a technician named 'Robert' and home warranty fraud patterns. Scores should be interpreted with this bifurcation in mind.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews from late 2021 (dates: 2021-12-01 to 2021-12-02) are clustered within 48 hours, are unusually generic in praise, and reference a Texas/Houston-area business context inconsistent with the San Diego reviews. One reviewer (2022-01-25) explicitly flags these as suspected fake reviews posted by California residents for a Houston business.
• 14 reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent 80+ reviews (2024–2025) are almost entirely 5-star and reflect a high-performing San Diego operation. The older reviews (pre-2023) contain a disproportionate number of 1-star reviews describing a pattern of fraud, rudeness, and incompetence. If evaluating only the last 12 months, scores would be substantially higher across all dimensions.
• PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS — HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers assigned through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, Old Republic, 2-10, First American). These reviews describe a consistent pattern of misdiagnosis, upselling, no-shows, and dishonest reporting to warranty companies. This pattern is strong enough to suggest systemic rather than isolated failures in that operational context.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-07-06, 1-star) alleges a company truck attempted to run the reviewer off the road. This is an isolated conduct allegation that cannot be scored but is flagged as a serious concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2023-06-23, 1-star) contains an allegation of spying on an elderly customer and reporting personal activities to an HOA. This is an isolated but serious allegation flagged for awareness.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years cite a receptionist named 'Jennifer' as rude, condescending, and argumentative. This is a recurring named pattern suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the office level, not isolated to field technicians.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool almost certainly spans two distinct business entities or operational eras — the recent San Diego operation (2024–2025) would score approximately 88–92 on its own, while the older review corpus (pre-2023, likely a different location) would score approximately 35–45, and consumers should research which entity they are engaging before relying on this blended score.

Rooterman earns solid marks for professionalism, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians across many years of reviews. However, pricing is a persistent and significant concern — multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly called out costs as excessive, with specific complaints about $300/hour rates, $890 hydro-jet jobs, and charges that far exceeded what competitors later quoted. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: several reviewers reported that the problem was not resolved after payment, that callbacks were ignored or refused, and in at least two cases the customer had to fix the issue themselves or hire another company. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and skill, but offset by incidents of misdiagnosis, property damage during service, and failed repairs. The combination of recurring pricing complaints and incomplete job resolution pulls the WW Score meaningfully below what the volume of positive reviews might otherwise suggest.

• Several reviews contain no substantive content (e.g., 'no comment', 'Good', 'Great', '{0}', 'Nothing at this time') — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• At least 4 reviews explicitly describe jobs that were not fixed after payment, with the contractor either refusing to return, demanding full additional payment, or being unreachable — this is a material project completion risk.
• Multiple reviews spanning 2017–2024 independently cite pricing as significantly above market rate, suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2019-01-28) describes property damage (scratched toilet, dented ceiling) and alleged misrepresentation of repair needs, which is a serious workmanship and ethics flag.
• One review (2018-10-07) describes a failed repair where the customer ultimately fixed the problem themselves using rented equipment after the contractor declined to return.
• Review dated 2020-09-17 describes a contractor who took full payment without resolving the issue and did not respond to a refund request — a significant trust and completion concern.
• A large portion of reviews are older than 3 years (many from 2006–2020), which limits the reliability of the score as a predictor of current performance. Recent reviews (2023–2024) are more favorable, suggesting possible improvement, but the sample is small.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, which supports authenticity across the dataset.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring and independently corroborated complaints about pricing and incomplete job resolution before hiring.

Affordable Plumbing and Eddie receive strong praise across many reviews for responsiveness, same-day and weekend availability, and genuine professionalism in the majority of interactions. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including allegations of billing fraud, abandoned jobs, property damage, and unprofessional conduct — significantly tempers the overall score across all dimensions. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while many customers praise affordability, multiple reviewers allege surprise charges, unexplained bills, and prices that did not match quoted amounts. Project completion is similarly mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished or no-shows, contrasted against many successful completions. Experience scores moderately well given consistent praise for diagnostic speed and technical knowledge, but is pulled down by incidents of damaged property and poor workmanship described in negative reviews.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Approximately 20+ reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same date with identical text. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform mirroring. Duplicate entries were deduplicated for scoring purposes, reducing the effective unique review count significantly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'These guys do great work at an affordable price I highly recommend.') with no specific details, job type, or context. These may be artificially inflated reviews.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 3 reviews contained no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple 1-star reviews allege billing fraud (charges far exceeding quoted prices), a job abandonment leaving a customer without water for days, property damage including a flooded house and a broken toilet, and a worker arriving with alcohol. These are severe credibility concerns.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive negative reviews date from 2019–2020. Most reviews from 2024–2025 are positive, which may indicate improvement over time — but the duplicate pattern in recent reviews reduces confidence in this trend.
• PAYMENT IRREGULARITY FLAG: One review (2019) describes Eddie requesting a money gram payment, which is a known red flag for fraudulent contractor behavior. This was noted but treated as a single isolated incident.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data volume but reduced trustworthiness due to confirmed duplicate reviews, suspected fake positive reviews, and multiple serious allegations of fraud and misconduct that prospective customers should weigh carefully before hiring.

Cash Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness across 9 of 11 reviews. Project completion is also a clear strength — the detailed 2018 review highlights a callback honored promptly at no extra charge, and several others confirm work was finished efficiently and correctly. Experience scores well based on specific mentions of quality workmanship, correct diagnosis, and skilled repairs, though most reviews are older than 12 months which tempers confidence. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praised reasonable or fair pricing, one 2-star review flagged a quote that felt excessive ($250 for a ball valve plus $200 to cut into a ceiling), which pulls the pricing score down meaningfully.

• The majority of reviews (10 of 11) are dated between 2018 and 2020, with no reviews from the past 12 months. Recency is a concern — current service quality cannot be confirmed from this dataset.
• Two reviews posted on the same date (2018-11-13) with nearly identical phrasing ('great at communicating', 'punctual') are mildly suspicious and may represent coordinated or prompted reviews. Confidence in those two reviews is reduced.
• Several reviews are generic and brief (e.g., 'Great work, excellent service. No complaints, happy to recommend.' and 'William did first-rate work.') with no specific details, limiting their scoring utility.
• One 2-star review explicitly flagged a pricing concern, which is the only negative signal in an otherwise uniformly positive set. This pattern — near-universal 5-star ratings with one outlier — is worth noting but does not alone indicate manipulation.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the sample size of 11 reviews is small, most data is 3–5 years old with no recent reviews to confirm current performance, and two potentially coordinated reviews slightly inflate the professionalism signal.

Thomas Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across 7 reviews. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident across 5 reviews, including correcting work from competitors. However, pricing is a significant weakness: one detailed review reports a $350 diagnostic fee that failed to identify a leak later fixed for $800 by another plumber, and another review notes costs as 'a bit on the high side.' The pricing dimension is based on limited mentions (3) and shows material customer dissatisfaction, pulling the overall score down despite strong performance in other areas.

• PRICING CONCERN: One 1-star review (2023-05-22) explicitly alleges the company charged $350 for unsuccessful diagnostics and overestimated repair costs at $3500, with another plumber completing the work for $800. This is a specific, detailed complaint with concrete numbers and represents a significant value-for-money failure.
• RECENCY BIAS: 5 of 8 reviews are from 2021 or earlier (oldest from 2016). Only 2 reviews are from 2023. Recent performance data is limited.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews use similar enthusiastic language ('definitely recommend,' 'will only use you from now on,' 'go to plumber') but this appears genuine given the 1-star review provides contrasting detail and the positive reviews cite specific service elements (early arrival, quick diagnosis, warranty, politeness).

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and project completion are well-supported by 7 mentions each, the pricing dimension is based on only 3 mentions with one strongly negative experience, and most reviews predate 2023, limiting insight into current pricing practices and service consistency.

Fields Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for friendly, responsive, and knowledgeable service from named technicians (Chris, John McLester, Jason, Donnie, Andy). Project completion is solid with jobs finished efficiently and issues resolved. However, pricing credibility is significantly damaged by one explicit complaint about false advertising regarding free estimates, which directly contradicts the company's website claims. The review portfolio is heavily weighted toward older reviews (2014–2017), with only one recent mention from 2022, limiting confidence in current operational standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 6 reviews are from 2014–2017; only 1 review from 2022. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUE: One 1-star review explicitly documents false advertising on the website regarding free estimates. Company acknowledged the misleading claim but refused to correct it. This is a material trust violation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews use similar generic praise language ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. However, some reviews do contain specific technical details (drain vent piping, irrigation backflow), so pattern is not conclusive.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant data recency issues and a documented pricing/honesty concern that undermines overall trustworthiness, despite strong professionalism ratings from older reviews.