Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, North Carolina

Wolf Plumbing demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the strongest pillar, with 26 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor—Robbie personally answers calls and arrives on time consistently. Project completion is highly reliable, with 20 reviews confirming jobs finished completely, callbacks honored, and follow-through on commitments including same-day emergency responses. Pricing receives strong marks from 11 reviews citing fair, transparent, and competitive rates with no hidden charges. Experience is well-documented across 15 reviews highlighting skilled workmanship, technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and the owner's 4-year plumbing degree. The consistency and specificity of positive feedback across all dimensions supports a high WW Score.

• All 31 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback—this is statistically unusual and warrants caution. While individual reviews contain specific details and vary in length/content, the complete absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings is atypical for any service business.
• Two reviews (dated None) lack timestamps, limiting recency assessment for those entries.
• One review is blank/empty (dated 2023-06-10), reducing usable data count by 1.
• Two reviews mention different team members (Andrew, Kyler) rather than Robbie, suggesting a team operation, though all feedback remains positive.
• Duplicate review detected: The shower faucet salvage story appears twice (2024-06-09 and 2024-03-15) with nearly identical wording, suggesting possible copy-paste or platform duplication rather than fake review creation.

This score is highly reliable based on volume and consistency of evidence (30 usable reviews with 26+ mentions per dimension), but the absence of any negative feedback should be interpreted with appropriate skepticism—real-world services typically show some variance in customer experience. The detailed, specific nature of most reviews and the presence of multiple team members mentioned suggest authentic feedback, but potential selection bias (only satisfied customers reviewing) cannot be ruled out.

Team Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism and project completion are particularly well-documented, with consistent praise for punctuality, friendly demeanor, thorough work, and follow-through on commitments. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident across multiple reviews describing complex jobs completed successfully. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned, with customers noting fair value and cost savings. The one negative review (3.0 stars) concerns alleged unprofessional conduct unrelated to actual plumbing work and carries minimal weight against the overwhelming positive evidence.

• Review dated 2021-05-22 (3.0 stars) is anecdotal observation of driver behavior at a traffic light, not direct service experience—minimal relevance to plumbing quality assessment.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (5 of 7 reviews predate 2021); only 2 reviews from 2020-2021. Recent performance data is limited.
• No negative feedback on actual plumbing work quality; all substantive complaints directed at competitor (Tombstone Plumbing). This skews perception positively but is not necessarily indicative of fake reviews.

This WW Score of 88.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by consistent positive evidence across professionalism and project completion with HIGH confidence. However, the age of most reviews (4+ years old) and limited recent data suggest caution when extrapolating current performance; recommend seeking more recent customer feedback to validate ongoing service quality.

Dixon Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most engagements, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and workmanship quality. However, the score is significantly impacted by two severe negative experiences involving project abandonment and unresponsive customer service, plus one recent 2024 review documenting incomplete restoration work. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though one customer was overcharged for parts. The company shows strong performance on routine jobs but critical failures on complex projects and follow-through accountability.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2015 and 2013) document serious project abandonment, non-responsiveness, and financial disputes. The 2015 review describes a 6-week communication blackout and rude customer service; the 2013 review alleges advance payment fraud ($760 collected, pump never installed, plumber disappeared).
• RECENT CONCERN: 2024-01-18 review reports incomplete drywall restoration after ceiling cutouts for pipe repair, with customer expressing concern about potential mold and lack of follow-up response.
• RECENCY BIAS: 26 of 30 reviews are from 2008-2016 (8+ years old). Only 1 review from past 12 months, limiting ability to assess current service quality.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Multiple reviews use minimal detail ('They did an excellent job,' 'It went well,' 'Very professional') without specifics, though this is balanced by several detailed positive reviews with concrete examples.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between routine job excellence and complex project failures suggests inconsistent quality control or accountability depending on project scope and personnel.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 82.1 reflects predominantly positive historical feedback, the presence of two severe project failures involving financial disputes and abandonment, combined with a recent incomplete work complaint and heavily outdated review base (87% older than 8 years), indicates the current reliability of this contractor is uncertain. Recommend requesting recent references and written project completion guarantees before engaging.

Holton Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with strong punctuality and communication in most engagements, though one significant scheduling failure (2017-03-14) and one customer service conflict (2015-04-23) lower the dimension score. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable compared to competitors, though one customer complained about excessive parts markups. Project completion is reliable with efficient work and timely service, though the 2017 scheduling disaster represents a critical failure. Technical experience is consistently praised with knowledgeable, efficient technicians who solve problems effectively. The company shows strong fundamentals but inconsistent execution in customer service recovery.

• Two reviews marked 'unknown' (2016-09-10, 2016-07-17) with 5-star ratings provide no substantive data and appear potentially suspicious or placeholder entries.
• One extremely generic 5-star review (2016-11-28: 'It was a good experience') lacks any specific details and may be low-quality data.
• Significant recency gap: 10 of 16 reviews are from 2017 or earlier; only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2022. Most data is 7+ years old.
• One critical negative incident (2017-03-14, 1-star) involving complete scheduling failure and no-show with poor communication recovery significantly impacts project completion confidence.
• One customer service conflict (2015-04-23, 3-star) where owner allegedly accused customer of lying and treated long-term customer with rudeness, indicating potential professionalism issues under dispute.
• Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers praise fair rates ($95-150/hour as reasonable), while others cite expensive parts markups and one complaint about $150/hour being high.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to significant data recency issues (most reviews 7+ years old) and the presence of low-quality placeholder reviews, though the HIGH confidence is supported by multiple substantive mentions across dimensions. The score reflects a generally competent, honest contractor with fair pricing and good technical skills, but with notable inconsistencies in customer service execution and communication during complex scheduling situations.

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.

Eastern Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally professional service delivery, with particular strengths in technician skill level and punctuality. However, pricing concerns emerge consistently across reviews, with multiple customers citing high estimates, unexpected charges (including disputed sales tax), and service fees that some view as excessive. Project completion is solid overall, though a small number of callbacks and incomplete first-visit resolutions were noted. The company excels at responsiveness, especially for emergency calls, and technicians are frequently praised for courtesy and knowledge. Recency analysis shows recent reviews (2025) contain significant pricing complaints, suggesting this may be an emerging or persistent issue.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews from 2025 and recent years cite high pricing, disputed charges, and lack of transparency. One 2025 review disputes sales tax inclusion; another criticizes $100+ overcharges vs. competitors. This pattern suggests pricing may be a legitimate concern rather than isolated complaints.
• DUPLICATE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The 'BEWARE OF EASTERN PLUMBING' review appears three times (2022-06-10, 2021-09-20 twice) with identical or near-identical text. This suggests either a data duplication error or a customer posting the same complaint multiple times, which artificially inflates negative weight on receptionist/owner professionalism issues.
• GENERIC/EMPTY REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain only ratings with no text ('unknown', '.', '...', blank fields). These provide no actionable data and inflate total count without contributing evidence.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2014-2019). Recent reviews (2025, 2024) show more critical tone regarding pricing and communication. Older reviews are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, suggesting possible selection bias or review platform changes over time.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Some reviews report no-shows or missed callbacks (2012-07-26, 2011-12-29), while others praise rapid response. This suggests inconsistency in operational reliability, though frequency is low.
• ESTIMATE FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews (2019, 2016) criticize the upfront estimate fee, though some later reviews note it is credited toward final bill if work proceeds. This policy appears to generate customer friction despite being disclosed.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to 127 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions. However, the score is pulled down by legitimate pricing concerns that appear consistently in recent reviews (2024-2025), suggesting current pricing practices may not align with customer expectations. The company's technical competence and professionalism are well-supported by evidence, but customers should expect mid-to-high pricing and should request detailed breakdowns before committing to work. The duplicate negative review and numerous empty reviews introduce minor noise but do not materially affect the overall assessment.