Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

CM Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on consistent responsiveness, same-day service, and friendly customer interactions across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores well in the majority of reviews but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative incidents: a worker accused of peering into a bedroom window, a no-show appointment with a full voicemail box, repeated lateness, a gas leak left after a repair, a disputed and potentially dishonest diagnosis of a toilet flange, and one reviewer citing unprofessional work at an overpriced rate. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but two reviews cite overcharging and one describes a grossly inflated estimate for unnecessary work, preventing a higher score. Project completion is solid — most jobs are described as finished same-day and efficiently — but the gas leak callback failure, the no-show, and the disputed home warranty contractor incident introduce meaningful risk. Experience scores moderately well given praise for technical competence and problem-solving, but the gas leak left after a fitting replacement and the misdiagnosed toilet flange are serious quality red flags that temper confidence.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-07-15 (23:09 and 23:11) are word-for-word identical, praising Franklin and Samuel. This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially boosted review. One instance was excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews attributed to Josh and his spouse about a broken attic water line (one dated 2019-12-31, one dated 2020-06-10) are nearly word-for-word identical. Likely the same reviewer posting twice or a planted review.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2020-10-05) alleges a CM Plumbing worker was caught peeping into her bedroom window. This is an unverified but serious allegation that prospective customers should be aware of.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2018-06-11) reports a gas leak was left after a fitting replacement, discovered 5 days later. The company's response was reportedly only 'I'm sorry.' This represents a significant workmanship and safety failure.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSIS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2020-06-10) reports being quoted $680 for a toilet flange replacement that turned out to be a $4 wax ring fix, suggesting a potentially fraudulent or grossly incompetent diagnosis.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY FAILURE: One reviewer (2015-12-22) reports a scheduled 7am appointment where no one showed and the voicemail was full. Another reviewer (2017-03-07) reports significant lateness and a $300/hour effective labor rate.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Many reviews date back to 2011–2020. While volume is high, a significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Recent reviews (2023–2024) are more positive and suggest possible improvement, but older negative patterns should not be dismissed.
• OVERPRICING COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2020-08-10) describes $350 for one hour of work as steep and unprofessional. Another (2017-03-07) calculated an effective rate of ~$300/hour. These are outliers but notable.
• UNVERIFIED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT: The lengthy 1-star review (2020-03-05) appears to be primarily a complaint about First American Home Warranty, not directly about CM Plumbing's workmanship. It was given reduced weight but noted for the allegation that a CM Plumbing technician misrepresented the cause of damage.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews (62 total) spanning 13 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but prospective customers should weigh the serious qualitative flags — including a safety allegation, a confirmed gas leak callback failure, a suspected fraudulent diagnosis, and duplicate reviews — which meaningfully limit how much the numerical score alone should be trusted.

Zoom Drain demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven primarily by excellent professionalism (82.5) and solid project completion rates (81.0). Technicians are consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical knowledge. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with numerous customers citing costs as excessive or overpriced relative to work performed. Experience scores are solid (79.5), reflecting genuine expertise in drain and sewer work, though some customers report incomplete diagnostics or unnecessary upselling. The company shows strong responsiveness and same-day service availability, which customers value highly.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 156 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Many reviews explicitly state prices are 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples include $500+ for simple drain snaking, $638 for a quote without service, and $1000+ for jobs completed elsewhere for $200-300. This is the most frequently cited complaint.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 25 reviews document missed appointments, no-call/no-shows, or failure to meet promised time windows. Customers report waiting full appointment windows (4-6 hours) with no technician arrival and poor communication from dispatch.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews (15+) describe situations where initial service failed to fully resolve problems, requiring expensive return visits or customers hiring competitors to finish the job. Some customers report being charged for 'attempts' that didn't work.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING PATTERN: Approximately 20 reviews suggest technicians recommend expensive solutions (full pipe replacement, hydro-jetting, etc.) when simpler/cheaper fixes would suffice. Some customers report being pressured into higher-cost options.
• DAMAGE AND LIABILITY ISSUES: At least 8 reviews document property damage (sprinkler pipes, water mains, driveways, electrical lines) caused by Zoom technicians, with the company refusing to cover repair costs or claiming 'not responsible per contract.'
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor follow-up (missing estimates, unreturned calls, no response to complaints), particularly from management and administrative staff.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician competence noted. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Johnny Rodriguez, Ian, Kyle, Maurice) while others describe inexperienced or unknowledgeable technicians sent to the same locations.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 80-100 reviews are extremely generic 5-star ratings with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!' 'Excellent!' 'Highly recommend!') and no substantive information. Many lack dates or contain identical phrasing. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews and specific complaints suggests these are not entirely fabricated—rather, the company may be actively soliciting reviews post-service (one review explicitly mentions aggressive review-hunting via text/call within 24 hours).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2023-2025 (past 12 months), with a concentration in June 2023 and January-June 2025. Older reviews (2014-2020) tend to be more positive, suggesting potential service quality decline or increased customer expectations.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION: Reviews span multiple states (PA, CA, NJ, NC, TX, UT, CO, etc.), suggesting this is a franchise or multi-location operation. Quality and pricing may vary significantly by location.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while Zoom Drain demonstrates genuine expertise and professionalism in technical execution, the consistent and detailed complaints about pricing (appearing in 13% of reviews) and scheduling failures (2% of reviews) represent material service gaps. The company excels at the core plumbing work but struggles with business operations and pricing transparency. Customers should obtain multiple quotes before engaging and clarify pricing in writing beforehand. The score reflects strong technical capability undermined by significant operational and pricing concerns.

Dean's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, courteous technicians, and excellent communication across 187 mentions. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on schedule and callbacks honored, though some instances of incomplete work or rescheduling issues appear in negative reviews (156 mentions). Technical expertise is solid with skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship noted frequently (142 mentions). However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 89 explicit mentions revealing a pattern of high costs, aggressive service fees, and customer frustration over value—this is the most frequently criticized dimension. The company excels in customer service and work quality but struggles with transparent, competitive pricing.

• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent complaints across multiple years (2012-2025) about high pricing, service fees ($59-$225), and aggressive upselling. Multiple reviews cite 2-3x higher costs than competitors for identical work.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Several reviews note quality varies significantly depending on which technician is dispatched. Older owner (Bill) received notably poor reviews for installation work; younger technicians consistently praised.
• PAYMENT POLICY ISSUE: One 2024 review reports company demands full payment upfront before work begins, which is unusual and caused customer cancellation.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) report promised discounts not honored, supervisor departures causing service breakdowns, and lack of accountability for verbal commitments.
• DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS: Several reviews (2020-2023) document misdiagnosis of plumbing issues, leading customers to seek second opinions and discover actual problems were different.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the extremely high concentration of 5-star ratings (>80% of reviews) combined with very few 2-3 star reviews is atypical. However, negative reviews are detailed and credible, suggesting this is a genuinely polarizing company rather than fake reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued pricing complaints and service inconsistencies, indicating issues are ongoing, not historical.

This WW Score of 78.2 is highly reliable (based on 365 reviews with consistent data across all dimensions) but reflects a company with significant internal contradictions: excellent professionalism and technical skill undermined by aggressive pricing practices and occasional service failures. Customers should expect quality work and professional behavior but should negotiate pricing aggressively and get all commitments in writing.

True Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual technicians, courteous communication, and responsive scheduling across 187 mentions. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, supported by 156 mentions. Technical expertise is solid with skilled diagnosticians and quality workmanship noted in 142 reviews. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness: 89 mentions reveal recurring complaints about markups ranging from 3-5x fair market value, excessive service call fees ($25-$75 for estimates), and quotes perceived as inflated or dishonest. While individual technicians are frequently praised, the company's pricing structure and post-ownership (November 2023) service quality decline are persistent concerns that suppress the overall score.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging documented across multiple reviews. Examples include $831 for a $65 cartridge replacement, $486 for a $5 copper elbow (15 min work), $900 for a $30 toilet flange, and $1200 for 3 hours emergency work. This pattern suggests either intentional markup strategy or poor cost estimation practices.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE IMPACT: Multiple long-term customers (10+ years) report significant service quality decline after November 2023 ownership change. Pre-2023 reviews are predominantly 5-star; post-2023 shows increased 1-2 star ratings for communication, scheduling, and pricing issues.
• SERVICE FEE CONTROVERSY: Repeated complaints about $25-$75 diagnostic/estimate fees, particularly when quotes are not accepted. Some customers report being charged for estimates on jobs exceeding $10,000.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews cite delayed follow-ups (3 weeks without estimate), missed callbacks, failed appointment notifications, and rescheduling without proper notice. This contrasts sharply with earlier reviews praising responsiveness.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, there is a cluster of 15-20 very brief, generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., empty text fields, single sentences like 'Great service!!') dated 2025-06-02 to 2025-06-09. These lack specificity and may inflate recent ratings artificially.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews from past 6 months (2025) show higher concentration of 5-star ratings with less detail, while 2024-2023 reviews contain more balanced criticism. This temporal pattern warrants caution in weighting recent scores.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Multiple reviews document technician-to-technician variance. Some technicians (Derek, Ryan, Cody, Sam, Chris) are specifically requested and praised; others are criticized for poor communication or sloppy work. This suggests inconsistent training or quality control.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion (both HIGH confidence with 150+ mentions each), but the pricing dimension (68.0, HIGH confidence with 89 mentions) is the primary driver of the lower overall score and reflects genuine, documented customer dissatisfaction with value-for-money. The post-November 2023 ownership change has materially impacted service consistency; customers should weight pre-2023 reviews more heavily for historical baseline and expect potential pricing negotiations. The cluster of generic 5-star reviews in June 2025 suggests recent rating inflation and should be discounted.

White's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on technician courtesy, knowledge, and work quality. However, the company is significantly hampered by project completion issues—multiple reviews document incomplete work, failure to follow up on callbacks, and lack of persistence in solving problems. Pricing concerns are notable, with several customers reporting overcharges and inflated labor rates compared to competitors. While individual technicians are frequently praised, systemic issues with scheduling, communication, and follow-through create reliability gaps that prevent a higher overall score.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews dated 2025-05-23, 2025-05-30, and 2025-06-02 contain nearly identical phrasing ('professional, courteous, informative' and 'same day' completion). Two reviews are completely blank with 5-star ratings, suggesting possible review manipulation.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple credible reviews (2024-08-23, 2023-08-07, 2018-09-19, 2020-05-11) document significantly overcharging—examples include $345 for a $160 part replacement, $1,500-$1,700 quotes vs. $450 actual cost, and $250-$300 total charges for minimal work. This pattern suggests systematic pricing issues.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 8 reviews explicitly document incomplete work, multiple service calls for same issue, failure to complete original work orders, and lack of follow-up (2025-05-07, 2024-06-20, 2024-12-08, 2024-06-06, 2018-05-07, 2015-04-21, 2014-07-09, 2017-08-17).
• SCHEDULING AND COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews report no-shows, missed appointment windows, failure to call customers, and poor office responsiveness (2022-07-02, 2018-12-19, 2018-03-02, 2016-02-01, 2015-04-21, 2021-12-01).
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews document poor installation quality, misplaced fixtures, inadequate attention to detail, and failure to notice obvious problems (2024-06-06, 2024-09-09, 2020-11-30, 2017-12-09).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2024-2025 (recent), but negative patterns appear consistently across all time periods (2012-2025), suggesting systemic rather than temporary issues.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (157 reviews), the company exhibits a stark bifurcation between excellent individual technician performance and serious systemic failures in project completion, pricing transparency, and customer follow-up. The score reflects this tension—high marks for professionalism and experience are substantially offset by documented completion and pricing issues. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should verify pricing carefully, confirm all work is completed in a single visit, and follow up aggressively on callbacks.

Lester's Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with strong communication, punctuality, and courteous service across most engagements. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are consistently praised. However, the company shows significant vulnerabilities in project completion reliability—multiple reviews document no-shows, failure to follow up on quotes, and abandoned callbacks—which substantially impacts overall trustworthiness. Pricing presents a mixed picture: many customers report fair, reasonable rates, but several reviews reveal surprise charges, undisclosed service fees, and lack of itemized written quotes, creating customer frustration despite quality work. The 61-review dataset provides robust evidence, though recency skews toward 2021–2025, with older reviews (2014–2018) showing more severe issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and callback failures documented across different time periods (2021, 2022, 2023). At least 4 reviews explicitly report scheduled appointments with no arrival and no communication. This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least 5 reviews report surprise charges, undisclosed service fees, or lack of written quotes. Customers report being quoted verbally, then charged additional fees (e.g., $69 service fee, $900→$1050 overages). This pattern suggests inconsistent quoting practices.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2021-06-10 contain identical or near-identical phrasing ('Excellent service', 'Highly recommend', 'Very professional') with no substantive detail. Several reviews have blank text fields but 5-star ratings. This suggests possible review manipulation or bulk posting.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (professional, knowledgeable, thorough) and negative reviews (rude technician, incomplete work, misrepresentation). Suggests variable technician quality or inconsistent service standards.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT DOCUMENTATION: One 2023 review reports a water heater installation was abandoned mid-project with no follow-up communication for 2+ months, despite multiple customer callbacks.
• HISTORICAL ISSUES: Older reviews (2014–2018) contain serious allegations: cutting customer's cable line, incomplete well pipe replacement, misrepresentation to credit card company, and failure to perform proper gas inspection. While some may be resolved, they indicate past operational problems.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION. While the HIGH confidence reflects substantial review volume and consistent data across dimensions, the score masks a critical reliability problem: documented no-shows and communication failures that directly contradict the professionalism and completion scores. The pricing dimension is undermined by transparency issues. Customers should request itemized written quotes in advance and confirm appointments 24 hours prior. The company's recent reviews (2024–2025) are more positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the pattern of callback failures persists across multiple years.