Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

JD Service Now demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and work quality. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite dramatically inflated quotes, hidden charges, and prices 2-10x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion reliability is mixed, with many reports of missed appointments, poor communication, rescheduling failures, and follow-through issues. While individual technicians often perform excellently, systemic problems with scheduling, pricing transparency, and accountability create substantial customer dissatisfaction despite the company's high review volume.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 60 reviews (dated 2025-06-09, 2025-06-06, 2025-06-04, 2025-06-03, 2025-05-07) are nearly identical or heavily duplicated with identical phrasing ('Always professional and efficient! Highly recommend!', 'Mitch was great. Highly recommend!', etc.). Multiple reviews contain the exact same text verbatim across different dates, suggesting potential fake or artificially inflated reviews. This pattern significantly inflates the apparent quality score.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple credible reviews allege systematic overcharging: $20,000 quote for drain work completed elsewhere for $1,950 (1000%+ markup); $7,000 for water heater + parts vs. $3,000 elsewhere; $650 garbage disposal vs. $299 competitor; $4,500 HVAC diagnosis vs. $400 elsewhere. Pattern suggests deliberate targeting of vulnerable customers (elderly, first-time homeowners, those in crisis situations).
• APPOINTMENT NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 25+ reviews document failure to honor scheduled appointments—customers waiting full days with no call, no show, no explanation. Company uses vague 'window' scheduling (e.g., '2-4pm') without firm commitment, then fails to deliver even within that window.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews report incomplete work, abandoned projects, failure to return for promised callbacks, and refusal to honor service contracts after payment received. One customer paid $175/year for maintenance contract and received zero service despite repeated calls.
• WARRANTY/GUARANTEE VIOLATIONS: Several reviews report work that failed within days/weeks, with company refusing warranty coverage or demanding additional payment for fixes to their own faulty installations.
• RECENCY BIAS: Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with generic praise and duplicated language, while older, detailed reviews (2014-2023) contain more specific complaints and credible negative experiences. This temporal pattern suggests recent review manipulation.
• OWNER RESPONSE PATTERN: Multiple reviews note that owner personally intervened only after negative reviews were posted, offering refunds/discounts to suppress complaints. This reactive damage control suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with SIGNIFICANT CAUTION due to evidence of review manipulation and inflation. The high volume of duplicated/identical recent 5-star reviews artificially elevates the score. When filtering for detailed, credible reviews from 2014-2023, the company shows a pattern of strong individual technician performance undermined by corporate-level failures in pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and follow-through. The pricing dimension (58.0) is the most reliable finding, supported by numerous specific, detailed complaints with corroborating evidence. Prospective customers should obtain multiple independent quotes and verify all pricing in writing before engaging this company.

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.

Professionalism scores reasonably well across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, and technician demeanor — however, this is meaningfully offset by multiple serious complaints including a technician with a gas leak oversight, a rude technician who refused to allow customers to speak, repeated no-shows, and a pattern of poor follow-through from office staff. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some customers praised fair or competitive pricing, a substantial number of reviews explicitly called out price gouging, unexpectedly high quotes, hidden charges, bait-and-switch tactics, and pressure sales — this is a recurring and credible pattern across multiple years and locations. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed same-day and efficiently, but there are multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, permit fraud, incomplete jobs, and technicians failing to return — including one customer strung along for over a year. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though several reviews document misdiagnosis, wrong parts ordered, and sending HVAC techs to do plumbing work.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10, 2025-05-26, 2025-06-02, and 2025-06-05 share identical dates with no timestamps, many are blank (rating only, no text), and the non-blank ones in these clusters are short and generic. This pattern is consistent with bulk review padding. Blank reviews (rating only, no text) account for approximately 33 of the 218 total reviews and have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• PERMIT FRAUD ALLEGATION: At least two reviews from the same apparent customer (dated 2024-05-23 and 2024-06-14) allege the company promised permits, failed to deliver, and then went silent — targeting a widow of a veteran. A third related review (2024-06-14) corroborates this. These are serious, specific, and credible allegations that significantly impact the project completion and professionalism scores.
• GAS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2022-01-11) describes a natural gas leak left unsealed for approximately 20 hours after a water heater installation, resulting in health impacts to the reviewer and their pet. This is a critical safety flag.
• REPEATED NO-SHOWS AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2015, 2020, 2021, 2024) describe appointments being cancelled last-minute, technicians failing to arrive within quoted windows, and no callbacks — indicating a systemic scheduling and accountability problem.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: One detailed review (2025-06-04) describes a phone rep promising transparent pricing, followed by a technician demanding $280 upfront — contradicting the company's own 'no surprise costs' website claim. The technician then selectively played a call recording to dispute the customer's account.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. Reviews from 2015 and earlier are given reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews (both positive and negative) are from 2020 onward and are well-represented in scoring.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK: Reviews appear to reference multiple franchise locations (Pearland TX, Monterey CA, South Florida, San Antonio TX, Yukon OK, Fallbrook CA, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate brand experience and may not accurately represent any single location.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (218 total, ~185 with usable data) spanning over a decade and multiple franchise locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume — however, the presence of suspected bulk-padded blank reviews, serious unresolved allegations of permit fraud and a gas safety incident, and a clear recurring pattern of pricing complaints and scheduling failures means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of brand-level performance, not a guarantee of quality at any individual franchise location.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

Blanton's consistently earns high marks for professionalism, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising technician courtesy, punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor across hundreds of reviews spanning over a decade. Technical experience and knowledge are also frequently cited positively, with many reviewers specifically naming technicians who explained issues clearly and demonstrated strong diagnostic skills. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: dozens of negative reviews explicitly describe quotes that were 3x to 10x market rates for standard repairs, a $109-$125 dispatch fee that many felt was a trap, and a pattern of upselling unnecessary services — resulting in a very low pricing score that significantly drags down the overall WW Score. Project completion is generally solid but is undermined by a meaningful number of complaints about abandoned work, missed appointments, incorrect installations requiring callbacks, and failure to follow through on promised repairs or refunds.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., 'Dee was great. He told me what to expect...' appears on both 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'Sven did great job...' duplicated; 'Chris Dick did an awesome job...' duplicated; 'Aiden, Chris and Travis...' duplicated; 'We used Blanton's recently...' duplicated; 'This is our 3rd time using Blanton's...' duplicated; 'Clif was absolutely wonderful...' duplicated; 'Thank you to Blantons...' duplicated; 'Great experience! Very polite...' duplicated; 'He was pleasant...' duplicated; 'I recently had the pleasure of having Gino and Tyrell...' duplicated; 'I received thorough plumbing services from Austin McDonald...' duplicated; 'Cole and Timothy did a wonderful job...' duplicated; 'Nicholas Huston did an amazing job...' duplicated; 'Very knowledgeable and pleasant customer service' duplicated; 'Very professional, polite. Excellent communication skills...' duplicated). These duplicates inflate the apparent volume of positive reviews and suggest possible review manipulation or a platform ingestion error. Confidence in raw review count is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND CONSISTENT: Negative pricing reviews span from 2009 through 2025, are highly specific (citing exact dollar amounts and comparisons to market rates), and come from diverse customers describing the same pattern: high dispatch fees, inflated labor costs, no itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling. This is not isolated — it represents a documented business model concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 12-15 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in bulk may indicate review padding.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The cluster of near-identical 5-star reviews posted on the same dates (June 6 and June 9, 2025) with identical text strongly suggests either a review import duplication error or coordinated fake review activity. This inflates the positive signal and has been accounted for by treating duplicates as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are overwhelmingly positive and largely duplicated. Older reviews (2018-2024) contain the bulk of detailed negative pricing and project completion complaints. The score reflects the full historical record, not just recent activity.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe missed appointments, incorrect wiring left after service, work not completed and requiring callbacks, a technician who disconnected a wire and left it improperly connected, a case where a plumber did not reconnect a washing machine after unclogging a drain, and a multi-month dispute over ceiling damage caused during a repair. These are not isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence given the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating positive signals, a systemic and well-documented pricing complaint pattern spanning many years, and several serious project completion failures — consumers should expect excellent technician interactions but should obtain competing quotes before authorizing any work.

Modern Plumbing has a large and long-standing review base that generally reflects a capable and responsive company, with many customers praising professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across plumbing, gas, and HVAC services. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and covering billing disputes, incomplete or botched work, poor communication, rude office staff, and at least one case where a company error caused significant property damage — prevents any dimension from scoring in the high range. Pricing received mixed signals: many reviewers praised fair rates, but others described being charged for no work done, double-billed for return visits, or given wildly inflated estimates. Project completion is similarly mixed, with strong examples of efficient same-day service alongside cases of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, and a year-long unresolved water heater installation. Professionalism scores were dragged down by recurring complaints about rude office staff, a no-show technician, and poor internal communication.

• 18 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to be duplicates or near-duplicates: the 1-star review dated 2019-06-11 and 2019-04-29 are word-for-word identical, suggesting either a duplicate submission or a copied review. This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• A significant number of 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'My go-to for plumbing needs.', 'Great place!', 'Very well.', 'Good work, easy to work with.') with no specific detail. While not conclusive of fake reviews, this pattern warrants caution and reduces confidence in the upper end of scores.
• Review date range spans from 2005 to 2025 — approximately 20 years. Reviews older than 3 years were given reduced weight. The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2018 onward.
• Negative reviews are spread across multiple years and cover distinct, specific incidents (billing disputes, property damage, rude staff, incomplete work), suggesting these are genuine complaints rather than coordinated attacks.
• One review (2024-06-09, 3-star) describes a company-admitted error that caused a home flood, with the company only partially compensating the customer and not covering their $2,200 insurance deductible. This is a significant project completion and professionalism concern.
• The company appears to operate across plumbing, HVAC, and gas services. Some reviews reference AC repair and generator installation. Scores reflect the full scope of services reviewed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 20 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted as reflecting a company with genuinely inconsistent service quality rather than a uniformly strong or weak performer — the 72 score reflects real variance, not a data gap.