Find Nearby Plumbers In Huntersville, North Carolina

Alex receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight his punctuality, communication, respectfulness, and trustworthiness. Pricing is described as affordable, fair, and reasonable across multiple reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting thorough follow-through, clean work areas, and repeat hiring over several years. Experience scores are grounded in specific mentions of quality workmanship on varied projects including fencing, electrical work, and wooden ramps, though the sample size of 8 reviews limits the overall reliability of these scores.

• Six of eight reviews are dated 2019, making them over 5 years old. Only one review (2022) falls within the past 3 years. Recency is a significant concern — current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Two reviews dated 2019-08-14 and one dated 2019-06-13 share identical dates with other reviews, which may indicate a burst of reviews submitted in a short window. This pattern warrants mild scrutiny.
• Several reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'He was quick, fast and perfect,' 'It went good. He does a good job.') with little specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in their authenticity and usefulness.
• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While this could reflect genuine quality, it also raises a mild flag for review selectivity or solicitation bias.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review pool of 8 and the fact that the vast majority of reviews are over 5 years old, making it difficult to assess Alex's current performance with confidence.

MCR Plumbing receives consistently strong praise for honesty, trustworthiness, and fair pricing across multiple reviews, with several customers noting flat-rate billing, no unnecessary upselling, and transparent communication. Professionalism scores are tempered by one notable 1-star review describing a rude tone, dismissiveness toward an emergency call, and an off-putting experience when the owner's daughter answered the business line — this is a meaningful data point that cannot be ignored. Project completion feedback is positive where mentioned, with one reviewer specifically noting work was completed on time and within budget after a major flood remediation job. Experience is reflected in comments about quality workmanship, helpful maintenance tips, and sound problem-solving advice, though fewer reviews speak to technical depth specifically. The single negative review meaningfully pulls down the professionalism score and warrants attention, particularly given that it describes behavior directly contrary to the 24-hour service advertised.

• One 1-star review (2019-03-10) describes rude behavior during an emergency call, including a dismissive tone, discouraging language, and reluctance to honor advertised 24-hour service — this is a credible and specific complaint that meaningfully impacts the professionalism score.
• Six of the eight reviews are older than 12 months as of 2024, with five reviews dated between 2017 and 2020. Only two reviews (2024-01-10 and 2024-03-11) fall within the past 12 months, limiting confidence in how current the overall picture is.
• The two most recent reviews (2024) are both 5-star but relatively brief and light on specific detail. While not conclusively fake, they lack the operational specifics seen in older reviews and should be weighted with some caution.
• Review volume is low (8 total), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions. Scores should be interpreted as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the review set is small, mostly dated, and includes one credible negative review that meaningfully offsets an otherwise positive pattern; prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Minyard Plumbing has a generally positive track record across professionalism, punctuality, and customer interaction, with many reviewers explicitly praising courteous, on-time arrivals and friendly staff. However, two detailed and nearly identical 1-star reviews (likely from the same customer submitted twice) describe a significant failure: a misdiagnosed water heater repair that was not corrected without additional charges, and a refusal to apply prior payment toward a new installation — raising serious concerns about workmanship accountability and customer service policies. Pricing is mostly viewed as reasonable, though one reviewer noted the price felt slightly high relative to the work. The large volume of 'unknown' reviews with no text content (8 rated 5-star, 1 rated 1-star) cannot contribute meaningful dimension data and inflate the apparent review count without adding analytical value. Most reviews with usable content are from 2011–2022, with the most recent substantive reviews from 2022, meaning recency data is limited and the contractor's current performance is uncertain.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2016-12-11 are nearly identical in content and appear to be the same customer submitting the same complaint twice (water heater misdiagnosis). Only one instance was counted for scoring purposes, but this inflates the negative signal and may indicate a motivated reviewer.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 'Lee Ennis' dated 2022-03-07 are nearly identical in content describing the same job by Jeremiah and Norell. Only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• 8 reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no text content cannot be scored on any dimension. These reviews are analytically useless and may artificially inflate the star average on external platforms.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews with usable content are from 2011–2019. Only two substantive reviews are from 2020 or later (both from 2022). The contractor's current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• The water heater incident reviews describe both a project completion failure (problem recurred the next day) and an experience/knowledge failure (misdiagnosis), as well as a professionalism/ethics concern (refusal to honor implied warranty). These were factored into all three relevant dimensions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a meaningful volume of usable reviews across all four dimensions, but is tempered by duplicate submissions, a large number of content-free 'unknown' reviews, the age of most substantive reviews, and a documented serious service failure that raises legitimate concerns about workmanship accountability.

The technicians themselves — Josh, Noah, Don, and Jacob — consistently receive praise for their knowledge, skill, and efficiency, driving a solid experience score. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by one detailed 1-star review citing repeated no-shows, unreturned calls, unauthorized credit card charges, and poor customer service from the business side, which represents a serious systemic concern. Project completion scores moderately well as most jobs described were finished promptly, but the same negative review documents a failure to show up as scheduled and unresolved financial follow-through. Pricing is a mixed picture: one reviewer found prices fair and transparent, while another explicitly called the $756.86 charge excessive and recommended getting competing quotes. Overall, the company shows a pattern of capable field technicians paired with unreliable back-office and customer service operations.

• Small sample size of only 6 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One detailed 1-star review (2023) describes unauthorized credit card charges, repeated no-call/no-shows, and failure to return calls after multiple attempts — this is a significant red flag for business practices beyond individual technician quality.
• One 1-star review (2022) explicitly warns that pricing may be excessive and recommends getting competing quotes before hiring.
• The company appears to operate under multiple names (NuBlue, Ease Air, Ease Plumbing) — this rebranding pattern warrants caution and may affect review continuity and accountability.
• Two of the positive reviews share the same date (2022-04-27) which is a minor flag worth noting, though the review content is sufficiently distinct to not suggest fabrication.
• Most reviews are from 2022–2023 with only two from 2024; recency weighting slightly favors the positive 2024 reviews but the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references and obtain multiple quotes before hiring.

Progressive Plumbing and its associated entities receive broadly positive marks for professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising named technicians such as Daniel, Victor, Marcus, Justin, and Roberto for being courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, arbitrary, or deceptive — including instances of verbal quotes being exceeded, refusal to itemize bills, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed promptly and well, there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, callbacks that were never honored, and at least one case of a job left incomplete with damage caused. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range significantly suppresses the overall score.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews reference 'San Bruno Plumbing' as the company name, while the majority reference 'Progressive Plumbing' or 'Progressive Service Company.' These may be distinct businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together, which would make the composite score unreliable.
• FAKE OR PADDING REVIEW CONCERN: At least 30+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent rating volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review for Marcus ('came on time in fact earlier than expected... cost was fair, lower than expected') appears verbatim on both 2025-05-19 and 2025-05-16. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. A significant portion of negative pricing and project completion reviews date from 2017–2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated — they appear across many years, many technicians, and many job types (water heaters, toilet repairs, faucet installs, drain clearing). This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as outliers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians performing unauthorized work, billing tenants without owner approval, leaving job sites in disarray, being rude or dismissive, and in one case potentially misusing a credit card. These are serious conduct flags.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no follow-up communication was made. This is a recurring project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing complaints, suspected entity mixing between 'Progressive Plumbing' and 'San Bruno Plumbing,' a high volume of blank filler reviews, and recurring patterns of no-shows and incomplete work that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.

This company exhibits a severe professionalism crisis driven by one catastrophic 2022 incident involving aggressive collection tactics, failure to honor communication agreements, and harassment of a pregnant woman—balanced against 12 consistently positive 5-star reviews from 2020-2021 praising punctuality, courtesy, and technical skill. The stark contradiction between the detailed negative experience and generic positive reviews raises significant concerns about review authenticity and whether the company's practices have fundamentally changed. Project completion and technical experience scores are solid based on explicit mentions of timely work and knowledgeable service, but the professionalism dimension is severely compromised by documented unethical behavior that overshadows claims of courtesy in other reviews.

• CRITICAL: Severe fake review pattern detected. Twelve consecutive 5-star reviews (2020-2021) use nearly identical generic language ('professional,' 'on time,' 'highly recommend,' 'great') with minimal specific detail, contrasting sharply with one detailed, specific 1-star review from 2022 describing serious misconduct.
• MAJOR RED FLAG: One review documents serious ethical violations including failure to honor explicit communication instructions, double-charging relative to phone quote, aggressive debt collection tactics (lien threat), and documented harassment of a vulnerable person (pregnant woman home alone). This is not a minor complaint but evidence of potentially illegal business practices.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews are from 2020-2021 (2-3+ years old). The single recent review (October 2022) is catastrophically negative. No reviews from past 12 months to assess current practices.
• AUTHENTICITY DOUBT: The uniformity and generic nature of 12 positive reviews, combined with absence of recent positive feedback and presence of a detailed negative incident, suggests possible review manipulation or that the company's practices deteriorated significantly after 2021.

This score should be treated with substantial caution. While the numerical WW Score of 62.8 reflects the data, the underlying pattern—generic positive reviews from 2+ years ago versus a detailed recent account of serious misconduct—suggests the company may have experienced a significant operational or ethical decline, or that positive reviews lack authenticity. The professionalism score is artificially elevated by older generic praise that contradicts documented recent behavior. Any decision should heavily weight the 2022 incident and seek current customer references.