Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

Professionalism received the strongest positive signals, with one reviewer specifically praising respectfulness, tidiness, and communication during the visit. Pricing is mixed — one reviewer explicitly called the work 'too expensive,' while another praised the value and competitive pricing, resulting in a conservative middle score. Project completion is penalized because one reviewer noted that a garage cutout was left unrepaired after the job, which is a meaningful incomplete-work flag. Experience was mentioned positively in terms of knowledge and thoroughness, but only across two reviews, limiting confidence significantly. Overall, the score is moderate and should be treated cautiously given the very small review sample.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated as preliminary only.
• One review ('It went very well!') contains no usable dimension-specific data and contributes nothing to scoring.
• Project completion concern: one reviewer noted the garage cutout was not closed up after work was completed — this is an explicit incomplete-work flag.
• Pricing conflict: one reviewer praised competitive pricing while another called the work 'too expensive' — scores reflect this tension conservatively.
• All reviews are dated 2023 — no recency concern within the dataset, but no recent 2024–2025 reviews are present to confirm continued performance.
• Two reviews share the exact same date (2023-06-06) which may indicate batch submission — minor fake review pattern flag, though content is sufficiently distinct to not warrant full dismissal.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with limited dimension coverage across all categories, making it LOW reliability — do not use this score as a definitive assessment without gathering significantly more customer feedback.

The two positive reviews highlight genuine strengths: the contractor is described as knowledgeable, kind, prompt, communicative, and reasonably priced, with one reviewer noting he cleans up after himself and returns for follow-up work. However, the 2-star review from August 2024 — the most recent review — raises a meaningful concern about responsiveness and follow-through, with the customer reporting no contact after two weeks of attempted outreach. This directly impacts both professionalism and project completion scores, pulling them down from what would otherwise be higher marks. With only 3 reviews total, confidence across all dimensions is low, and the recency of the negative review adds additional weight to the concern about communication reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with caution.
• The most recent review (August 2024) is a 2-star complaint about lack of follow-up and poor responsiveness, which is a meaningful negative signal given the small sample size.
• The two positive reviews are genuine and specific in detail, reducing fake review concern, but the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions.
• One positive review is dated September 2023, which is over 12 months old — the most recent data point is the negative review, which may reflect a current decline in responsiveness.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered preliminary and low-reliability; the most recent review is negative, which is a notable warning sign that warrants gathering more current customer feedback before drawing firm conclusions.

Progressive Service Company has a deeply mixed record across a large review set spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores moderately well — many reviewers praise individual technicians as polite, punctual, and courteous — but this is significantly offset by multiple serious complaints about rude managers, a technician who refused to leave until paid, intimidating behavior, and a no-show appointment with no call. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with a substantial number of reviewers explicitly calling out extreme overcharging, markups of 4000% on parts, inflated labor quotes, and deceptive billing practices; only a minority of reviewers described pricing as fair or reasonable. Project completion is middling — many jobs were completed successfully, but there are notable failures including recurring breakdowns after repair, abandoned work, a sewer line left uncapped leaking raw sewage, and a water heater job that required multiple return visits. Experience is similarly split: many technicians are praised as knowledgeable and skilled, but multiple reviews document misdiagnoses (e.g., falsely claiming a heat exchanger was broken, recommending a full AC replacement for a $5 capacitor fix, and incorrect wiring left as a fire hazard), which meaningfully drag the score down.

• 14 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews from May 2025 and September 2024 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Good job', 'excellent', 'Great service!') with no specifics. While not conclusively fake, they follow a pattern of low-detail 5-star reviews that may inflate perceived sentiment.
• Two reviews (2016-05-04 and 2016-05-05) appear to be near-identical duplicate submissions from the same customer about the same job (CJ installing toilets). Only one was counted per dimension.
• A significant cluster of negative reviews (ratings of 1–2) spans multiple years and describes systemic issues: price gouging, misdiagnosis, intimidation, non-responsiveness of management, and unlicensed technicians. These are not isolated incidents and suggest recurring operational problems.
• Review dated 2019-09-21 explicitly states the technician had no license — a serious professional and legal concern.
• Review dated 2019-06-27 describes electrical work left out of code and posing a fire risk — a serious safety and workmanship concern.
• Review dated 2014-04-25 describes technicians refusing to leave the customer's home until paid and threatening to increase the bill while waiting — a significant professionalism and conduct flag.
• Many reviews are older than 3 years. Reviews from 2012–2018 make up a large portion of the dataset. Recency weighting was applied conceptually, but the volume of older reviews means the score reflects a long historical average rather than current performance.
• The company appears to operate under multiple brand names (Progressive Service Company, Swift Brothers Plumbing) following acquisitions, which may affect consistency of service quality across the review period.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (136 total, 122 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but consumers should note that the score reflects a long historical average with significant variance — individual experiences range from excellent to severely problematic, and systemic pricing and workmanship complaints are well-documented and recurring.

Capital Plumbing has a large and long review history spanning roughly 2006 to 2025, with a clear majority of positive experiences but a meaningful and recurring pattern of serious complaints. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by multiple credible negative reviews describing no-shows, unreturned calls, broken promises, and in at least one case aggressive or belligerent behavior from the owner — these are not isolated incidents but appear across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or competitive by satisfied customers, though several negative reviewers describe overcharging, lack of itemized receipts, and billing disputes, keeping this score moderate rather than high. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple reviewers describe unfinished work, failed repairs, warranty disputes, and jobs that required third-party contractors to correct — including a sewer replacement that caused ongoing problems and a new pipe line that developed leaks and caused sheetrock damage. Experience scores moderately well among satisfied customers who praise technical knowledge and problem-solving, but is offset by reviews explicitly citing poor workmanship, use of defective materials, and incompetence. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine capability and many happy customers, but with a persistent and credible pattern of reliability and quality-control failures that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2012–2021. Only a handful of reviews are from 2023–2025, and several of those are blank (no text, only a 5-star rating). Scores are weighted toward more recent substantive reviews but the volume of recent data is limited.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 13 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence slightly inflates the apparent star average.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The cluster of blank 5-star reviews (particularly the group dated 2019-06-11, 2020-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2023-06-10) with no text and identical formatting is suspicious. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence has been adjusted accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Originally checked and replaced backflow valve for outdoor sprinkler system' appears twice with different dates (2021-06-10 and 2020-11-25). Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — NO-SHOWS AND ABANDONMENT: At least 6 separate reviewers across different years describe being stood up for appointments, never receiving promised estimates, or having calls go unreturned. This is a recurring operational failure, not an isolated incident.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE OR DEFECTIVE WORK: Multiple reviewers describe work that was left unfinished, repairs that failed shortly after completion, defective materials being used, and the company refusing to honor warranty or callback commitments. This directly and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — BILLING AND PRICING DISPUTES: At least 3 reviewers describe being overcharged, receiving no itemized receipt, or being charged for a consultation fee that was promised to be waived. One reviewer describes a $368 charge for a 30-minute job with $15–$20 in parts.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One detailed review describes the owner responding to a legitimate complaint with 'a barrage of obscenities.' Another describes intimidation tactics. These are credible behavioral red flags that affect the professionalism score.
• VERY OLD REVIEWS: Several reviews date to 2006–2009. These were given minimal weight in scoring given the age of the data and the likelihood of personnel and ownership changes over time.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (110 reviews) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously because of a credible pattern of serious complaints about reliability, incomplete work, and billing disputes that appear consistently across multiple years and multiple independent reviewers, and because approximately 13 blank 5-star reviews with no content suggest possible review padding that artificially inflates the raw star average.

Bud Matthews Services presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Professionalism scores moderately well due to consistent praise for individual technicians being friendly, punctual, and communicative, but is dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints about staff being rude, failing to follow through on callbacks, and in one case a manager making dismissive and unprofessional remarks to a customer. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous explicit complaints about high hourly rates, unexpected charges, work performed without prior authorization, and billing for jobs that did not resolve the problem — outweighing the handful of reviews that found pricing reasonable. Project completion is also compromised by several detailed accounts of repeat visits failing to fix the same problem, abandoned work, technicians who never returned, and at least one case of dangerous gas line installation. Experience scores moderately, with many reviewers praising individual technicians as knowledgeable and skilled, but offset by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, guesswork repairs at customer expense, and at least one case of a technician making a problem worse.

• 21 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These blank reviews cannot be used for dimensional scoring and inflate the apparent star average without providing any verifiable information.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-12 and 2024-10-01) appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same detailed plumbing complaint, likely submitted by the same customer. Only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• A cluster of blank 5-star reviews in May–June 2025 with no accompanying text is a potential indicator of review padding or solicited ratings without genuine feedback.
• One review (2024-08-13) raises a specific allegation that Bud Matthews misrepresents its BBB accreditation status on its website, which is a potential trust and ethics concern beyond service quality.
• At least one review (2025-01-10) describes a potentially dangerous gas line installation error that could have caused an explosion — this is a serious safety flag for plumbing work specifically.
• Several negative reviews span from 2012 through 2025, indicating that pricing complaints and follow-through failures are not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern over many years.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025, which is appropriate for weighting. However, the pattern of pricing and completion complaints is consistent across the full date range.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with strong dimensional coverage, but reliability is moderately reduced by 21 content-free 5-star reviews that cannot be scored, at least one duplicate review, and a wide variance in experience quality that suggests outcomes may depend heavily on which technician is assigned and what type of work is requested.

New Light Services has a large base of satisfied customers who frequently praise technician friendliness, punctuality, and responsiveness, with many reviewers citing same-day or rapid service as a standout quality. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns across all four dimensions: multiple reviewers report misdiagnosis, incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to return calls — including one detailed account of a job that stretched from 2 days to 7 days and another where the owner never followed up after a failed repair. Pricing is a notable weak point, with several reviewers explicitly calling the company overpriced or citing hidden fees and double-billing, partially offset by others who found pricing fair and transparent. Workmanship quality is inconsistent — some technicians are praised as highly skilled and thorough, while others are described as careless or incompetent. The overall picture is a company with genuine strengths in customer service culture but significant reliability and quality control gaps that prevent a higher score.

• 12 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review ('Never been there', 5 stars) appears to be a fake or mistaken review and was excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews appear to be near-duplicate submissions from the same user regarding a toilet installation complaint (dates 2021-06-10 and 2020-09-14). Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great guys put up a chandelier perfectly', 'prompt service!', 'Get electrical contractor') with no specific detail — these were counted but treated conservatively in scoring.
• The majority of negative reviews are older (2017–2022), while recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positive. This may reflect genuine improvement, but the negative patterns — especially around callbacks, misdiagnosis, and incomplete work — are serious enough to weigh meaningfully.
• One reviewer explicitly describes the owner (Joe) as sexist toward their wife across two separate reviews, which is a significant professionalism concern that was factored into the professionalism score.
• A 2017 review includes uploaded photo evidence of alleged property damage and unresolved gas line issues — this is a high-severity complaint and was weighted accordingly in project completion and experience scoring.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable text data and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring negative patterns around job completion, misdiagnosis, and owner responsiveness seriously before hiring, particularly for complex or high-stakes projects.