Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, North Carolina

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor across multiple named technicians including Troy, Adam, Tim, Aaron, Matt, and others, driving a strong but not perfect professionalism score. Pricing receives a moderately positive score — many reviewers explicitly call out fair, reasonable, or competitive pricing and instances where the company saved customers money, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews cite overcharging, inflated estimates, and refusal to negotiate, which meaningfully pulls the score down. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as completed correctly and on time, but several serious negative reviews describe abandoned work, misdiagnosed problems, warranty disputes, and jobs left incomplete with no follow-up, preventing a top-tier score. Experience is generally rated highly, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnostics, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe poor installations, code violations, and misdiagnoses that temper the score. The WW Score of 79.4 reflects a company with a strong positive track record but a non-trivial pattern of serious complaints that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Excellent service!!! The faucet water control handle broke off...' appears twice with dates 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30 — identical text, likely a duplicate submission or copy-paste fake review.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I reached out for a couple of repairs I needed and was provided with upfront estimates...' appears twice with dates 2024-08-10 and 2024-07-09 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'The only plumber I use (and you should use)...' appears twice with dates 2024-06-06 and 2021-06-30 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I found my plumber for life. This company is very honest...' appears twice with dates 2024-06-06 and 2023-08-06 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I use and recommend Mike The Plumber every time...' appears in near-identical form twice (2025-05-07 and 2024-06-06) with only minor wording differences, suggesting coordinated or recycled review content.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2024-06-06 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps suggests possible bulk import or artificial review injection rather than organic posting.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2023-06-07 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps raises the same concern.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2023-08-07 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps raises the same concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating (at least 8 identified). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substantive feedback.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Several reviews reference '1st Home and Commercial Services' and HVAC work, which appears to be a different company entirely from Mike the Plumber / Mike & Sons Plumbing LLC. These reviews may have been incorrectly attributed and were excluded from scoring where clearly unrelated.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews describe incomplete work, misdiagnosis, warranty refusal, unapproved charges, no-shows, and unresponsive owners after payment. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years (2012–2025), suggesting a recurring pattern of post-payment service failure.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Several reviewers explicitly describe estimates they considered grossly inflated (e.g., $2,984 vs $400 from a competitor; $6,500 vs $2,500; $1,500/hr equivalent charges), which materially impacts the pricing dimension score.
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe the owner (Mike) as unresponsive after payment, dismissive of complaints, and in one case verbally abusive. This is a notable flag for customer service reliability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with specific timestamps are from 2023–2025, providing reasonably current data. However, the bulk-dated clusters (2023-06-07, 2023-08-07, 2024-06-06) make it difficult to assess true recency distribution with confidence.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, suspicious bulk-dated review clusters, blank rating-only submissions, and a consistent pattern of serious post-payment complaints spanning multiple years — prospective customers are strongly advised to read negative reviews in full before hiring.

Above All Plumbing Service scores well across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the strongest area — multiple reviewers explicitly praised punctuality, friendliness, and clear communication. Pricing is also a notable strength, with several reviewers specifically calling out fair, transparent quotes and no upselling or overcharging. Project completion is the most tempered dimension: while most jobs were completed satisfactorily, one reviewer (1-star, 2019) explicitly stated the plumber made their plumbing situation worse rather than fixing it, which meaningfully pulls this score down. Experience scores solidly, with reviewers citing skilled troubleshooting, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship across a range of job types including complex multi-day repairs.

• One negative review (1-star, May 2019) describes a failed toilet unclog that allegedly damaged the broader plumbing system — this is a direct project completion and experience concern and was weighted accordingly.
• Several reviews are significantly dated: 5 of 9 reviews are from 2018–2020, meaning they are 4–6 years old. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (October 2024). Recency weighting was applied; the score may not fully reflect current service quality.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and specificity. Named technicians (Adam, Corey, Chip) appear across multiple reviews, adding authenticity. No identical phrasing was observed.

The WW Score carries HIGH confidence due to sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions, though the predominance of older reviews (2018–2020) and one explicit negative outcome introduce meaningful uncertainty about current service consistency.

Wilkins Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for friendliness, responsiveness, and communication. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of timely repairs and follow-through on multiple jobs. Technical skill and knowledge are evident from problem-solving examples and customer satisfaction. Pricing feedback is limited to two mentions of fairness and honesty, which is insufficient to establish strong confidence in this dimension. The overall score reflects reliable performance across professionalism and completion, though pricing data remains sparse.

• Review recency concern: 5 of 8 reviews are older than 2 years (2014-2015), with only 2 recent reviews from 2022-2024. Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• One review marked 'unknown' with generic 5.0 rating and no text content (2015-08-18) — excluded from analysis.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical detail. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any constructive criticism or specific problem mentions is atypical and limits depth of assessment.
• Pricing dimension severely underdeveloped: only 2 mentions across 7 usable reviews. Cannot reliably assess value proposition.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and completion dimensions are well-supported by multiple recent and historical reviews, the heavy weighting toward older data (2014-2015) and complete absence of negative feedback raises questions about representativeness. Pricing assessment is too limited to be meaningful. The score reflects strong historical performance but may not fully represent current service delivery.

Drain Dawgs demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, politeness, communication, and quick service. Pricing is favorably mentioned in three reviews, with customers noting fair value and transparent quoting. Project completion is solid across four reviews, with jobs resolved quickly and follow-through honored. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in three reviews. However, the sample size is small (5 reviews), and three of the five reviews are older than 12 months, which limits confidence in the overall assessment.

• Small sample size (5 reviews total) limits statistical reliability
• Three of five reviews are from 2022, over 18 months old; only two reviews from 2024
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical perspective is atypical and should be noted
• Review language is consistently enthusiastic and generic in places (e.g., 'Five Stars is not enough!', 'AMAZING'), though specific details are present in most reviews
• One review (2024-04-12) is notably brief and somewhat ambiguous in its recommendation

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size and age of most reviews; while the data present is consistently positive and contains specific examples of good service, a larger and more recent dataset would be needed to establish high confidence in this rating.

Thomas Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in project completion and professionalism. The company excels at responsiveness, same-day/next-day service, and technical competency across multiple technicians (David, Dean, Cody, Patrick, Jerry, etc.). However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple complaints about bait-and-switch tactics, inflated labor charges, and quotes that don't match final bills. While most recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal recurring issues with pricing transparency and occasional quality control problems. The company shows good recovery practices when issues are escalated to ownership.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple explicit complaints about dishonest pricing practices including bait-and-switch quotes (2023, 2020), inflated labor hour billing (2020), and quote discrepancies. This pattern appears across different time periods and suggests systemic pricing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews document poor workmanship requiring callbacks or rework (loose faucet installation 2020, failed toilet installation 2019, incomplete reverse osmosis work 2014). Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2024-2025 are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2010-2020) show more balanced feedback with specific complaints. Recent reviews lack the specificity and critical detail of older reviews, suggesting possible review selection bias.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document defensive or dismissive responses from ownership when quality issues are raised (2020 faucet installation, 2019 toilet installation, 2011 jetted tub). Owner initially denied workmanship issues before eventually conceding.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE DELIVERY: No-show appointment (2018), multiple callback requirements (2020), and technician knowledge gaps (2014) indicate operational inconsistencies despite strong recent performance.
• GENERIC RECENT REVIEWS: Several 2024-2025 reviews contain minimal detail or are entirely blank, reducing confidence in their authenticity.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are uniformly positive and support a higher score, the company's documented history of pricing disputes, quality control issues, and defensive ownership responses suggests customers should verify pricing in writing before work begins and carefully inspect completed work. The score reflects strong technical capability and responsiveness but is tempered by legitimate concerns about transparency and consistency.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.