Find Nearby Plumbers In Greensboro, North Carolina

Horizon Services demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, the company is severely hampered by aggressive pricing practices and widespread customer complaints about overcharging for parts and labor—often 2-3x market rates. Project completion is reliable when work is performed, but scheduling cancellations and appointment rescheduling are chronic issues. The company's business model appears to prioritize upselling system replacements over honest repairs, which significantly undermines customer trust despite individual technician quality.

• CRITICAL: Systematic overpricing pattern—capacitors charged at $200-$500 when market rate is $15-$50; refrigerant marked up 300-500%; labor rates often double or triple competitors
• CRITICAL: Predatory sales tactics—technicians routinely recommend full system replacement ($10k-$25k) for minor repairs fixable for $100-$500; documented cases of deliberately misdiagnosing problems to justify replacements
• HIGH: Chronic appointment cancellations—dozens of reviews report same-day or day-before cancellations with minimal notice, forcing customers to reschedule months later; contradicts advertised 'same-day service' guarantee
• HIGH: Fake review suspicion—cluster of nearly identical 5-star reviews from June 2025 with generic praise and minimal detail; repetitive phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly') across multiple reviews suggests potential review manipulation
• HIGH: Discriminatory service area practices—multiple customers report being refused service based on zip code (Baltimore City vs. County), with company refusing to explain reasoning
• MODERATE: Poor follow-up and communication—numerous complaints about unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and inability to reach supervisors; customer service representatives allegedly hang up on callers
• MODERATE: Quality control inconsistency—multiple reports of technicians breaking equipment during service, leaving debris, or performing incomplete work requiring return visits
• MODERATE: Warranty and billing disputes—customers report being charged for services not rendered, hidden surcharges (fuel, dispatch, diagnostic fees), and difficulty obtaining itemized invoices

This WW Score of 62.3 should be trusted as a realistic assessment based on 987 usable reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks a deeply problematic company: while individual technicians are often competent and professional, Horizon's corporate pricing model, predatory sales practices, and chronic scheduling failures create a pattern of customer harm that outweighs technical competence. The company appears to exploit customer urgency and lack of HVAC knowledge to maximize revenue rather than provide fair value, and the high volume of detailed negative reviews describing identical overcharging patterns suggests systematic corporate policy rather than isolated technician errors.

Still Waters Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competency and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising technicians like Kyle, Jeremy, and Jeramie for thorough diagnostics, timely service, and follow-through. Professionalism is generally solid with positive comments on punctuality, communication, and courtesy. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns: multiple customers report lack of transparency regarding costs, with one customer charged $449 for a 5-minute drain unclog (market rate $65–$200) and another charged $79 diagnostic fees that were supposed to be waived. Additionally, corporate-level business practices are criticized for poor appointment scheduling, unresponsive communication, and aggressive collection agency involvement without proper customer notification. The stark divide between field technician quality and corporate management failures creates an inconsistent customer experience.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CRISIS: Multiple reviews (2021-08-10, 2022-11-14) explicitly cite lack of upfront pricing disclosure and charges perceived as excessive or deceptive. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• CORPORATE MANAGEMENT FAILURES: Reviews from 2024-03-21, 2023-01-06, and 2022-07-23 describe poor appointment systems, ghosting customers, unresponsive communication, and aggressive collection practices without proper notification. These suggest organizational dysfunction separate from field technician quality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2020–2021 (older than 2 years). Recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality or business practices may have deteriorated after acquisition.
• ACQUISITION IMPACT: 2024-03-21 review explicitly notes decline in service quality after acquisition by Stillwaters, suggesting organizational changes may have negatively affected customer experience.
• INCONSISTENT EXPERIENCE: Stark contrast between 5-star field technician reviews and 1-star corporate/pricing reviews suggests two different companies operating under one name.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: while field technician performance is genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the company's pricing practices and corporate management are seriously flawed (MODERATE confidence on pricing). The overall score of 68.2 reflects a company with excellent technical staff undermined by poor business practices; customers should expect good workmanship but verify pricing in writing before service and be prepared for potential billing disputes.

Pendergrass & Holder Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While several customers praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, multiple serious complaints document poor professionalism (attitude problems, lack of communication, disrespect), project delays spanning 6+ weeks, incomplete work requiring callbacks, and pricing concerns including overcharging and inadequate quoting. The company demonstrates technical capability in routine repairs but struggles with complex projects, communication consistency, and customer respect. Recent reviews (2023) remain mixed, suggesting ongoing operational issues.

• CRITICAL: Highly polarized review distribution (8 five-star vs. 4 one-to-two-star reviews) suggests inconsistent service quality rather than fake reviews. The detailed negative reviews contain specific dates, names, and verifiable details that appear credible.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2006-2017). Only 3 reviews from 2023 and 2022. Recent data is limited and mixed (1-star, 5-star, 5-star).
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple explicit complaints about attitude, disrespect, and poor communication (2018 detailed review, 2023 review). One customer explicitly warned elderly people to avoid this company.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: 2018 review documents 6-week delay on a 4-6 day job with multiple communication failures, incomplete work phases, and rushed final inspection.
• PRICING RED FLAG: 2014 review documents overcharging ($127.50 charged vs. $85/hour quoted for <1 hour, no parts used). 2018 review suggests inadequate quoting and pressure for additional payments.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: 2008 review documents multiple callbacks, installer error (plastic part left in sewer tank), and equipment damage by technician.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN PERFORMANCE: Named technicians (Jeremiah, Keith, Joseph) receive both praise and severe criticism, suggesting quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 16 reviews with adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization (50% five-star, 25% one-star), significant recency bias (most reviews >5 years old), and detailed documentation of serious failures in professionalism and project completion indicate this company delivers highly variable service. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this inconsistency and should not be interpreted as reliable average performance; customers should expect either excellent or poor service with meaningful probability of the latter.

Martin Bradley Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across recent reviews. While older reviews (2020-2021) consistently praise professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing, recent reviews (2023-2024) reveal serious problems: dramatic price discrepancies between phone quotes and actual charges, unresolved service issues, and poor follow-up communication. The company appears to have undergone management changes that negatively impacted service quality and pricing transparency. Professionalism scores are dragged down by appointment cancellations and unresponsive management, while pricing suffers from bait-and-switch tactics and unexplained cost overruns.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Older reviews (2020-2021) are uniformly 5-star with detailed praise; recent reviews (2023-2024) are 1-2 stars with specific complaints. This suggests significant operational decline under new management.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple recent reviews cite massive discrepancies between initial phone quotes and final charges ($275-300 quoted vs $698 charged for dishwasher; $450 for 1-hour job; $700 for unresolved backup). Pattern suggests misleading initial estimates.
• SERVICE COMPLETION ISSUE: Review from 2023-03-28 explicitly states problem was not fixed and follow-up email to management went unanswered, indicating poor accountability.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Review from 2021-04-26 shows customer took vacation day and appointment was cancelled with insufficient notice, damaging trust.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 2021-12-09 review is suspiciously generic ('Great Customer Service... Great Prices... Great Combination!!!') with no specific details, contrasting sharply with detailed reviews. However, insufficient pattern to conclusively flag as fake.
• MANAGEMENT CHANGE IMPACT: First review explicitly notes 'under new management' and customer dissatisfaction, corroborated by quality decline in subsequent 2023-2024 reviews.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 12 reviews with adequate mention counts, the stark divergence between pre-2022 and post-2023 reviews suggests the company has fundamentally changed. Recent customer experiences (past 12 months) are significantly worse than historical performance, making the overall WW Score potentially misleading if used to predict current service quality. Current customers should expect lower professionalism and higher pricing than the aggregate score suggests.

Edwards and Mills shows strong technical competence and professionalism in execution, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns: three recent reviews (2019-2024) explicitly cite unfair pricing practices, hidden charges, nickel-and-diming, and misleading quotes. Project completion is inconsistent, with one critical failure (toilet not fixed, no follow-through) and mixed responsiveness. The stark contrast between glowing older reviews and detailed negative recent reviews suggests either a decline in service standards or that earlier praise may not reflect current operations.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2019, but pricing complaints appear consistently across multiple years (2019, 2022, 2024), suggesting systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Three separate reviews detail aggressive add-on charges, hidden fees, and misleading quotes. One review explicitly mentions fear-tactics and defensive owner behavior when questioned.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: One review documents complete failure to fix the original problem and lack of follow-through despite multiple customer calls.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: The 2024 review is extremely generic ('Fast reliable service by excellent technicians') with no specific details, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. However, insufficient pattern to flag as fake.
• OWNER CREDIBILITY: Multiple reviews reference owner assurances about pricing that were not honored, suggesting communication or integrity issues at management level.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While technical competence appears genuine (HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension is heavily weighted and shows consistent problems across multiple years with HIGH confidence. The company's WW Score is primarily dragged down by documented pricing practices that customers found deceptive or unfair. Recent reviews suggest these issues persist.

Charlie's Plumbing shows strong technical capability and fair pricing based on positive feedback, but is significantly hampered by serious reliability and appointment-keeping issues. Two of three reviews explicitly praise professionalism and work quality, but one recent review (2023) contrasts sharply with an older negative review (2022) citing repeated no-shows and rescheduling failures. The business demonstrates competence when work is performed, but inconsistent follow-through on commitments undermines overall trustworthiness. The limited review volume and mixed signals create substantial uncertainty about current operational standards.

• CRITICAL: Appointment reliability is a major concern — one review explicitly documents two failed appointments and rescheduling. This directly contradicts claims of being 'reliable and timely' in another review.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (2023-12-15) is positive, but the damaging appointment-failure review is from 2022. Unclear if issues have been resolved.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits confidence in any dimension. Recommend collecting more recent data before making hiring decision.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUES: One review mentions 'trouble contacting,' suggesting potential responsiveness problems.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting signals about reliability. The business appears technically competent but has documented appointment-keeping failures that represent a significant operational risk.