Find Nearby Plumbers In Greensboro, North Carolina

This contractor shows mixed performance across a very small sample size. Professionalism is significantly undermined by two no-shows without courtesy notification, which directly contradicts positive feedback about responsiveness and efficiency in other reviews. Pricing and experience dimensions receive strong marks from satisfied customers who praise fair pricing and skilled workmanship. Project completion appears solid where work was performed. However, with only 3 reviews and critical professionalism failures, the overall score reflects substantial uncertainty and should not be considered reliable for decision-making.

• CRITICAL: Two consecutive no-shows without communication represent severe professionalism failures that contradict the company's stated reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are from 2021-2022 (2+ years old); only one review from 2023 provides recent data.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total is insufficient for robust scoring; recommend collecting more recent feedback before making hiring decisions.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 5-star review from 2022-02-22 contains unusually verbose, generic praise with tangential religious content and military credentials that may indicate fabrication or manipulation. The phrasing 'best bang for the buck' and repetitive superlatives lack specific technical detail.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient review volume (n=3), conflicting evidence of professionalism, outdated data, and suspected review authenticity issues; do not rely on this score alone for contractor selection.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2018–2024), making trend analysis difficult. Professionalism scores moderately: two reviews praise friendliness and communication, one highlights dependability, but the 2018 negative review describes severely unprofessional conduct including destroyed ceilings and walls. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — the 2018 negative review describes an abandoned, defective project with buried live wires requiring a third-party contractor to fix, which significantly drags down the score despite the 2024 reviewer noting callbacks were honored for a leak and wall damage. Experience is similarly mixed: recent reviews praise knowledgeability and skill, but the 2018 negative review documents crooked light installations, structural damage, and a formal reprimand from the North Carolina Electrical Board. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored.

• SERIOUS QUALITY FLAG: One review (2018) documents a formal reprimand by the North Carolina Electrical Board (case 2015-1077) for buried live wires and property damage — this is a significant safety and competency red flag.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only one review is within the past 12 months (2024). Two reviews are from 2018 and one from 2020, meaning the majority of data is over 3 years old and may not reflect current performance.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Scores carry limited statistical reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: The 2018 negative review explicitly states the contractor was fired mid-project and a second company was hired to complete and remediate the work — this is a direct project abandonment/failure signal.
• MINOR INCIDENT NOTE: The 2024 reviewer noted a hole busted in the wall during electrical work and a minor post-installation leak, though both were addressed by the contractor at no additional cost.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews spanning 6 years, a documented regulatory reprimand, and at least one confirmed project failure — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

Central Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile: a large cluster of positive reviews praising courteous, efficient technicians by name (Gary, Russell, Joshua, Rusty, Mark, etc.) is offset by a substantial and detailed body of negative reviews spanning over a decade. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with numerous reviewers explicitly citing undisclosed hourly rates, call-out fees not applied to final bills, misrepresented charges, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion suffers significantly due to recurring complaints of unfinished work, failed repairs requiring return visits, abandoned jobs, and a company policy of not warranting repairs. Professionalism scores are dragged down by consistent reports of unanswered calls, managers who never return calls, office staff miscommunication, and technicians who misdiagnosed problems or worked on the wrong areas entirely. Experience scores reflect a split between genuinely skilled technicians praised in positive reviews and multiple accounts of serious technical failures including a dangerous carbon monoxide venting issue and a years-long pattern of leaking installations.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large number of 5-star reviews share the same date of 2024-06-09, many with minimal detail (e.g., 'Al and Ricky did an amazing job. Highly recommend', 'Everything done in one day!', blank reviews with only a 5-star rating). This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and should reduce confidence in the positive review cluster.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever but carry a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2009 through 2025, indicating persistent and systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The most recent negative reviews (March 2025) describe the same patterns — undisclosed fees, unwarrantied repairs, and failed follow-through — as reviews from 2009, suggesting these are structural business problems.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2024-2025 and reference specific technician names, which adds some credibility. However, the 2024-06-09 date clustering remains a concern.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe being charged fees not disclosed upfront, being quoted prices far above market rate, and being billed for work not performed. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company leaving jobs incomplete, failing to return for follow-up work, and explicitly stating a policy of not warranting repairs. One review describes a dangerous carbon monoxide venting installation left improperly sealed.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: Across many years and many reviewers, a recurring complaint is that managers and owners do not return phone calls when disputes arise, suggesting a systemic customer service failure at the management level.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (85 total) spanning 16 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of bulk positive review submission on a single date and a well-documented, multi-year pattern of pricing, completion, and communication failures that persists into 2025.

Bare Tech Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, extreme tardiness, argumentative and condescending technician behavior, and poor office communication — though a meaningful number of older reviews praise punctuality and courtesy. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous explicit complaints about overcharging, padded bills, undisclosed charges, and prices far above competitor quotes, with only a handful of reviews praising fair value. Project completion is a serious concern: multiple reviews describe abandoned work, failed repairs requiring callbacks, incomplete jobs, and one case where faulty installation caused years of undetected water damage — though some positive reviews do describe thorough, follow-through work on complex jobs. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint, as several reviews praise skilled workmanship on difficult jobs, but are offset by documented cases of incorrect diagnoses, improper installations, and half-completed repairs. The overall picture is of a company with capable technicians in some instances but systemic reliability, pricing transparency, and quality control problems.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing cutting out a water filter and replacing with PVC (rated 1 star) appears twice with nearly identical text — one dated 2020-06-10 and one dated 2020-02-05. Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed positive review about the cast iron drain under a concrete slab (Mike and Matt) appears twice — once dated 2019-06-11 and once dated 2018-12-13. Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• BLANK/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Seven reviews contain no text (only a rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2009–2021. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), one strongly positive and one strongly negative. The score should be interpreted with caution given the age of most data.
• PATTERN NOTE: Several older 5-star reviews use generic, non-specific language ('Great service,' 'Perfect service,' 'Sweet,' 'unknown') with no detail. These were not counted toward dimension scores as they provide no explicit evidence of any dimension per scoring rules.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe billing disputes, padded charges, and work not completed as agreed. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe technician misconduct including refusal to leave a home, condescending behavior toward a female customer, and argumentative responses to legitimate complaints — including from the owner Calvin/Chris directly.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews spanning approximately 18 years, with HIGH confidence across all dimensions due to mention counts, but should be treated with moderate overall trust given the age of most data, the presence of duplicate reviews, and a stark polarization between detailed negative reviews citing specific systemic failures and older positive reviews that are often vague or generic.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile. Positive reviews from 2018–2020 praise professionalism, responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical knowledge across AC, plumbing, and renovation work. However, three significant negative reviews — including one from 2024, one from 2021, and one from 2020 — describe serious project completion failures: unfinished work, unlicensed subcontractors, defective workmanship, and a legal dispute involving a tacit admission of defective construction. The project completion score is heavily penalized because multiple reviews describe abandoned or incomplete work, incorrect installations, and the need to hire other contractors to fix errors. The most recent review (2024) involves a dismissed small claims court case citing a defective improvement to real property, which is a significant red flag for quality and accountability.

• SERIOUS LEGAL FLAG: The most recent review (June 2024) describes a small claims court case involving alleged flooding damage to a pool house. The contractor successfully argued dismissal under a statute of limitations covering 'defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property,' which the reviewer interprets as a tacit admission of defective work. This is a significant red flag.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: A 2021 review explicitly states the job was still unfinished after an extended period, with the reviewer indicating they would need to hire someone else to complete the work.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR ALLEGATION: A 2020 review alleges the contractor and plumber were not properly licensed, that background check claims were false, and that workers were sourced from outside a hardware store. These are serious legal and safety concerns if accurate.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews are dated 2018–2020. The two most recent reviews (2021 and 2024) are both 1-star with serious complaints. This negative recency trend significantly undermines confidence in current service quality.
• REVIEW POLARIZATION: The review set is sharply split between 5-star and 1-star ratings with no middle-ground scores, which may indicate selective review solicitation or a business with inconsistent service quality across different job types or crews.
• POSSIBLE OWNERSHIP/PERSONNEL INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews reference both 'Chris Sampson' and 'Anthony' as the primary contact, and negative reviews also reference 'Anthony.' This may suggest different personnel handling different jobs, with inconsistent quality outcomes.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review set, a sharp positive-to-negative polarization, a concerning recency trend where all recent reviews are negative, and serious unresolved allegations including unlicensed work and a legal dispute — prospective customers should weight the 2021 and 2024 reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

ARS Rescue Rooter presents a deeply polarized review profile. A significant portion of positive reviews praise individual technicians as professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and timely, which elevates the professionalism and experience scores above what the negative reviews alone would suggest. However, the volume and severity of negative reviews is substantial: recurring themes include no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, high-pressure sales tactics, price gouging on parts and labor (often 3-10x market rate), misdiagnosis of problems to upsell unnecessary repairs or full system replacements, and near-total failure of customer service escalation. Pricing receives the lowest score due to overwhelming and consistent evidence of extreme markups, bait-and-switch advertising, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion suffers from numerous accounts of incomplete work, failed inspections, return visits required, and jobs abandoned mid-project. The review set also contains a large number of brewery reviews (ARS Brewing in Philadelphia) and other clearly off-topic reviews that were excluded from scoring.

• MAJOR DATA CONTAMINATION: A significant number of reviews in this dataset are clearly for a different business — ARS Brewing, a craft brewery in Philadelphia, PA. These reviews reference beer, food trucks, taprooms, and brewery atmosphere and have no relevance to HVAC or plumbing services. These were excluded from scoring but inflate the raw review count significantly.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEWS: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., multiple exact duplicates of 'Great service, very professional.', 'All went well; Very professional.', 'The tech arrived early for the appointment. He was courteous & professional and quickly completed the job.', 'Adam check everything, and got a/c back on.', 'Daniel was amazing', 'Not friend, right away started to charge me without inspection of the drain.'). These appear to be the same reviews submitted multiple times across different dates, strongly suggesting review manipulation or a data feed error. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• REVIEW DUPLICATION: Dozens of reviews appear verbatim multiple times across different dates (e.g., the Jeremy R Smith review, the Andy and Alex review, the Service men were efficient review, the Horrible experience review). This suggests either a data pipeline issue or deliberate review stuffing. Duplicate reviews were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Across hundreds of unique negative reviews spanning 2011 to 2025, a consistent and severe pattern emerges of ARS failing to honor appointment windows, providing no notification of delays or cancellations, and offering no meaningful recourse through customer service. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different cities and years report being quoted 3x to 10x market rate for parts and labor. Examples include $455/lb for refrigerant (market: $40-80), $650 for a $25 capacitor, $1,100 for a 30-minute warranty repair, and $10,000+ for sewer work completed by competitors for under $2,000. This pattern is too consistent and widespread to be coincidental.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND UPSELL PATTERN: Numerous reviewers report being told they needed full system replacements or expensive repairs, only to have a second-opinion technician fix the actual problem for a fraction of the cost. In several cases, reviewers allege ARS technicians deliberately disabled or damaged equipment to create a sale opportunity.
• OFF-TOPIC REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Reviews referencing beer, breweries, food trucks, and taproom experiences were identified as belonging to ARS Brewing (Philadelphia) and were excluded from all dimension scoring. These reviews do not reflect the HVAC and plumbing contractor being evaluated.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference ARS locations across many states (TX, FL, NC, SC, VA, IL, OH, TN, GA, etc.), suggesting this is a national franchise. Service quality appears highly variable by location, which limits the reliability of any aggregate score as a predictor for a specific local branch.

This WW Score of 52.1 should be treated with caution: while it is based on a very large number of substantive reviews providing HIGH confidence in the statistical sense, the score is significantly undermined by confirmed review duplication, suspected fake positive reviews, off-topic brewery reviews contaminating the dataset, and extreme geographic variability across a national franchise — consumers should research their specific local ARS branch independently before engaging services.