Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

Eagle Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, reflecting a company with genuine strengths but also notable inconsistencies. Professionalism scores 78.5 based on 89 mentions, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, and communication—though a significant subset reports rude phone staff, no-shows, and late arrivals. Pricing scores 77.0 across 52 mentions; customers frequently cite fair and reasonable rates, though some object to parts markups and the $100 minimum service call fee. Project Completion scores 75.2 from 78 mentions, revealing a critical weakness: while many jobs are completed successfully, a substantial number of reviews document incomplete work, warranty disputes, poor craftsmanship, and failures requiring callbacks or outside contractors. Experience scores 80.5 from 68 mentions, with strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability consistently praised, though some reviews cite incompetence or misdiagnosis. The company shows a pattern of excellent work from certain technicians (Jeff, Tim, Victor, Kevin, Bob) alongside poor experiences with others and persistent phone-based customer service issues.

• CRITICAL: Two major negative reviews (Sept 2024, 0.5 and 1.0 stars) document severe project failures on a 4-plex replumbing job—trenched and cracked sewer line covered up without repair, dozens of installation errors, extended timeline (5+ weeks vs. 1.5 weeks promised), sloppy workmanship, and incomplete follow-through. These are detailed, specific, and credible complaints suggesting systemic quality control issues on larger projects.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2013–2021) report no-shows, missed appointment windows, and lack of communication despite scheduled service times. This pattern suggests operational/dispatch issues that persist across years.
• PATTERN: Recurring complaints about rude, dismissive, or sarcastic phone staff (multiple reviews mention 'Steve' and unnamed female receptionist with poor attitude). This is a consistent weak point in customer experience.
• PATTERN: Several reviews document warranty disputes, refusals to honor work guarantees, and demands that customers prove fault before service is provided at no charge.
• CONCERN: Reviews from 2024 show the company still operating, but the Sept 2024 4-plex disaster and earlier major failures suggest quality control remains inconsistent, particularly on complex/large jobs.
• RECENCY: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selection bias or review platform changes. However, the Sept 2024 negative reviews are detailed and credible.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. Several reviews are blank (5-star with no text) or extremely generic ('Great job,' 'Wonderful,' 'unknown'). However, the majority of reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied experiences, suggesting authentic feedback overall. The pattern of detailed negative reviews alongside detailed positive ones supports authenticity.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: the company demonstrates genuine competence and customer satisfaction in routine jobs and with specific technicians, but exhibits serious inconsistencies in project completion quality, phone-based customer service, and performance on complex/large projects. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on technician assignment and job complexity, and should be prepared for potential communication friction and warranty disputes. The Sept 2024 4-plex failure is particularly concerning and suggests the company may struggle with scope management and quality oversight on larger engagements.

This analysis covers two distinct plumbing companies: CK's Plumbing (primarily recent reviews, 2025-2024) and Schwartz Plumbing (mixed timeline, 2017-2025). CK's Plumbing demonstrates exceptional consistency with 40+ recent 5-star reviews emphasizing professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing. Schwartz Plumbing shows significant variability: strong technical expertise and professionalism in many cases, but persistent complaints about high pricing, hidden fees, poor communication, and inconsistent service quality across different technicians. The blended WW Score of 76.8 reflects this mixed portfolio—strong execution and expertise offset by legitimate pricing concerns and service inconsistencies, particularly with Schwartz's historical pattern of charging diagnostic fees without upfront disclosure and overcharging relative to market rates.

• COMPANY MIXING: This dataset contains reviews for TWO different plumbing companies—CK's Plumbing and Schwartz Plumbing. CK's dominates recent reviews (2025-2024) with overwhelmingly positive feedback. Schwartz appears primarily in older reviews (2014-2021) with significant quality variance.
• PRICING CONCERNS - SCHWARTZ: Multiple reviews (2014-2016) document hidden fees, diagnostic charges not disclosed upfront, and pricing significantly above market rates. Examples: $850 quote for $50 job; $195 diagnostic fee; $78-$80 follow-up charges without advance notice; $275/hour labor rates. This pattern is consistent and explicit.
• SERVICE INCONSISTENCY - SCHWARTZ: Quality varies dramatically by technician. Some reviews praise specific technicians (James, Pedro, Matt) as excellent; others report rude, dismissive, or incompetent service from the same company. This suggests inconsistent hiring/training.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES - SCHWARTZ: Multiple reviews report unreturned calls, unresponsive office staff, owner refusing to engage with complaints, and failure to honor 24/7 emergency service claims (2021, 2017).
• RECENCY BIAS: CK's Plumbing reviews are almost entirely from 2025 and late 2024 (40+ reviews). Schwartz reviews span 2014-2025 with concentration in 2014-2017. CK's recent dominance suggests either new company emergence or recent reputation improvement.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - CK'S: One blank review (5.0 stars, 2024-12-11) with no text. Otherwise, CK's reviews show natural variation in detail and specificity, with consistent mention of named technicians and specific job types. No obvious fake patterns detected.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - SCHWARTZ: No obvious fake patterns. Negative reviews are detailed and specific with dates, amounts, and named individuals. Positive reviews vary in detail. Appears authentic.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: One CK's review is blank (5-star, no text). This was counted but provides no dimension data.
• PRICING METHODOLOGY CHANGE: Schwartz appears to have shifted from hourly billing to flat-rate pricing around 2014, which may explain some pricing complaints in later reviews.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY: Schwartz owner responses to complaints (2014-2015) were dismissive and defensive rather than service-recovery focused. This is documented in multiple reviews and suggests systemic customer service issues.

This WW Score should be interpreted with caution due to company mixing: CK's Plumbing (recent, highly consistent, 40+ reviews) scores substantially higher than Schwartz Plumbing (mixed timeline, significant variability). If evaluating CK's Plumbing alone, the score would be approximately 88-90 with HIGH confidence. If evaluating Schwartz Plumbing alone (2014-2025), the score would be approximately 72-75 with MODERATE confidence due to documented pricing and communication issues offsetting strong technical execution. The blended 76.8 score reflects the portfolio as presented but masks important company-level differences.

Evans Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive communication across 48 reviews. Project completion is solid at 78.0, though several negative reviews document incomplete repairs, callback failures, and unresolved issues that temper confidence. Experience/workmanship scores well at 80.0 based on technical knowledge and skill demonstrated. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (65.0) with 12 explicit mentions of billing disputes, hidden charges, inflated quotes, and lack of itemized invoices. The company shows bipolar performance: many recent reviews (2024-2025) are uniformly positive, while older reviews (2011-2023) contain serious complaints about billing practices, no-shows, and quality issues. This pattern suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review manipulation.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 28 reviews with no text content (empty body, 5-star rating only) concentrated in May-June 2025 and scattered dates. This is highly unusual and suggests possible fake/placeholder reviews.
• BIPOLAR PERFORMANCE: Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with glowing detail, while older reviews (2011-2023) contain serious complaints about billing fraud, no-shows, and poor workmanship. This stark divergence warrants skepticism.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2023, 2022, 2019, 2013) document billing disputes, hidden charges, inflated quotes, lack of itemized invoices, and collection threats. This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE FAKE/SPAM REVIEW DETECTED: Review dated 2023-07-11 contains incoherent rambling ('your hair is very pretty', 'evan sucks') mixed with unrelated praise—clearly not a legitimate plumbing review.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews report leaks in newly installed work (2018, 2019), incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (2022), and poor workmanship (2024 Sean review). Suggests quality control issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025. Older reviews (pre-2023) show more critical feedback. Recent surge in 5-star reviews may not reflect historical performance.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are consistently positive and support a higher score, the presence of 28 empty placeholder reviews, stark contrast with older critical reviews, documented billing fraud patterns, and one obvious fake review significantly undermine confidence. The company appears to have improved operationally in 2024-2025, but historical billing practices and quality issues are well-documented. Customers should verify current pricing transparency and request itemized invoices before engaging.

Plumbing Solutions has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technician knowledge across many named individuals including Jacob, Otto, Ed, Andres, Brian, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — consistently cite serious concerns: significantly inflated pricing (multiple reviewers report quotes 2–10x higher than competitors), failure to follow up or return calls, incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, and in several cases rude or threatening behavior from owners or staff. The pricing dimension is the weakest, dragged down by numerous credible, specific complaints about overcharging for simple jobs and lack of pricing transparency. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is tempered by documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved permits, and repairs that failed within days or weeks. Professionalism scores reflect a split picture: many technicians are praised warmly, but office and owner conduct generates a recurring pattern of serious complaints.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical reviews for 'Jake was excellent' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Matt installed a new kitchen sink disposal' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'Enrique was exceptionally helpful' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'I am a contractor remodeling a bathroom' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Another excellent experience with Plumbing Solutions' on 2025-06-03, two identical reviews for 'I never met him' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Very Professional, answered questions when asked' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Otto Maldonado and his crew' on 2025-10-28, two identical reviews for 'Otto with PLUMBING SOLUTIONS' on 2025-06-23, two identical reviews for 'Highly recommend Plumbing Solutions. Jacob is punctual' on different dates). This pattern of duplicated 5-star reviews is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data but inflate the apparent star average.
• PRICING CONCERNS — CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations cite specific dollar amounts that appear grossly inflated compared to competitor quotes: $1,200 estimate for a garbage disposal and snake vs. $100 actual fix; $1,500+ estimate for a P-trap vs. $300–400 actual; $670 for a toilet reset with no new toilet; $520 for a $10 part and 15 minutes of work; $3,500 tankless water heater at 2x+ retail markup; $1,045 for 4 feet of pipe. These are not vague complaints — they are specific, detailed, and corroborated across many reviewers.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years describe the owner or management as rude, threatening, or dismissive when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes being shouted at and threatened with a lien; another describes the owner threatening to 'come settle it in person'; another describes being told 'stop the dramatics and pay the bill.' This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• FOLLOW-UP AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: A recurring theme in negative reviews is failure to return calls, respond to messages, or follow through on scheduled appointments. This spans from 2012 through 2025, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE OR FAILED REPAIRS: Several reviews document repairs that failed within days or weeks, with the company then refusing to honor warranties or return to fix the issue without additional charges. One reviewer documents a $1,300 repair that did not fix the problem, followed by a demand for $435 more.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are given higher weight. Negative patterns (pricing, communication failures, incomplete work) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• AGGREGATION NOTE: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple platforms and possibly multiple business entities operating under the 'Plumbing Solutions' name across different geographic regions (references to Smyrna, Dedham MA, Wichita, Nashville, Chicago, California, etc.). Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect more than one business.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, strong evidence of pricing manipulation complaints, recurring owner conduct issues, and the likelihood that this dataset aggregates reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same or similar name.

This contractor has a large and long-running review history spanning over two decades, with the majority of reviews being strongly positive across professionalism, technical skill, and responsiveness. Many customers praise prompt arrival, clear communication, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple employees — raises serious concerns: repeated allegations of overcharging, incomplete or abandoned work, warranty non-fulfillment, unprofessional and even abusive employee conduct (notably 'Wes'), and failure to respond to follow-up calls or emails. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing excessive charges, hidden fees, and unfair billing practices. Project completion also carries notable risk, with several reviews describing unfinished jobs, no-shows, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• Multiple reviews (spanning 2007–2024) describe serious misconduct by employees, particularly 'Wes/Wesley', including verbal abuse of customers, showing up unannounced, and overcharging — these are not isolated incidents.
• Several reviews describe incomplete or abandoned work, including a 2022 review alleging the CEO threatened legal action after failing to complete a contracted job, and a 2024 review describing a walk-through with no follow-up quote or response.
• Pricing complaints are recurring and specific: hidden drive-time fees, charges for unresolved issues, markups on parts exceeding 200%, and estimates described as 'outrageous' by a pipe manufacturer.
• Warranty non-fulfillment is explicitly mentioned in at least two reviews, including a 2011 review about a water heater warranty and a 2023 review about faulty new construction work.
• A significant number of reviews (33+) contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews are not usable for dimension scoring and inflate the apparent review count without providing evidence.
• The review pool spans from 1999 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple business entities or locations (references to Vacaville CA, Evergreen CO, New Jersey, and other regions), suggesting this may be a merged or multi-location profile. Scores from different eras and locations may not reflect a single consistent operation.
• Several reviews from 2007 reference 'US Plumbing' and 'PRV' as the company name, not Adams Plumbing, suggesting data aggregation from multiple contractors — these were included in analysis but noted as potentially misattributed.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and specific, which is encouraging, but the negative pattern from 2014–2024 is too substantial to discount.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but the volume of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Excellent work') warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor's track record is genuinely mixed, with a strong positive majority offset by a persistent and credible pattern of serious complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and employee conduct that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.

Poole's Plumbing receives strong praise across recent reviews (2023–2025) for professionalism, courteous technicians, and responsive scheduling, with many customers citing specific employees by name and describing thorough, careful work. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — consistently flags pricing concerns including hidden fees, billing structure changes without notice, inflated quotes, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished correctly on the first visit, but several reviews describe faulty work, warranty disputes, and at least one serious legal conflict over contract terms. Experience scores are buoyed by many technically competent service calls, but offset by a handful of reviews citing misdiagnosis, incompetent diagnostics, and poor problem-solving. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled and professional field staff whose reputation is meaningfully dragged down by recurring pricing transparency issues and inconsistent office/management conduct.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Prompt and didn't try to upsell anything. Nice people all around.') posted on the same date (2025-03-11) — likely a submission error or fake duplicate; one was excluded from scoring weight.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text about a rude scheduling secretary posted on 2017-03-31 (one with a timestamp, one without) — treated as a single incident.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large number of reviews are marked 'unknown' or contain only a period or blank text with 5-star ratings. These 25+ content-free reviews cannot be scored and inflate the apparent review count without providing usable signal. This pattern is consistent with padding review volume.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2014–2018 contain a disproportionate share of negative pricing and professionalism complaints. Reviews from 2023–2025 skew more positive, suggesting possible improvement over time — but the older negative patterns (pricing disputes, warranty refusals, rude office staff) are too numerous and specific to dismiss.
• WARRANTY AND LEGAL DISPUTE FLAGS: At least two reviews describe Poole's refusing to honor warranties (2017, 2016), and one detailed review (2023) describes a lawsuit, lien placement, and alleged predatory contract enforcement — a serious flag for project completion and professionalism integrity.
• PRICING PATTERN FLAG: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe being charged significantly above market rate, surprise fees, billing structure changes without notice, and emergency pricing exploitation. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT FLAG: Several reviews specifically cite rude, dismissive, or deceptive behavior from office/scheduling staff — distinct from generally positive field technician reviews. This split suggests a systemic management or culture issue rather than individual technician problems.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the presence of ~25 content-free placeholder reviews, two confirmed duplicate reviews, a persistent multi-year pricing complaint pattern, and at least one serious legal/warranty dispute — consumers should weight recent reviews more heavily and scrutinize pricing terms carefully before engaging this contractor.