Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

Axis Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, clear communication, and skilled workmanship, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out technicians by name for excellent service. However, the review set contains several serious negative experiences that significantly drag down scores, including repeated failures to fix the same issue causing water damage, a technician breaking a customer's faucet and management refusing accountability, a pattern of rude and dismissive phone staff, and at least one case of prolonged unresponsiveness that caused a customer to abandon the company entirely. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who mention it, but the negative reviews introduce enough concern about follow-through and accountability to suppress the project completion and professionalism scores considerably. The most recent reviews (2024) include both a strong positive and a serious complaint about dishonesty and rudeness, indicating the issues are not fully historical.

• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2017–2022, with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2024). The score is therefore weighted toward older data and may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2018) alleges the owner submitted a fraudulent insurance report to avoid covering damage caused by a technician. This is a significant integrity flag.
• REPEATED FAILURE: One reviewer (2020) reports the same issue was 'fixed' twice and still failed, causing water damage to their home. Staff response was described as rude and dismissive rather than solution-oriented.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer (2019) documents over a year of follow-up attempts with no resolution or callback, indicating a systemic responsiveness problem at the management level.
• STAFF CONDUCT PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2018, 2020, 2024) independently describe rude or dismissive behavior from office/management staff, suggesting this is a recurring issue rather than an isolated incident.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews vary in detail, mention specific technician names, and describe distinct scenarios. No strong indicators of fabricated reviews were found.

This WW Score is based on 16 reviews spanning 2017–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the presence of multiple serious, independently corroborated complaints about staff conduct, unresolved work, and alleged fraud means the score should be interpreted cautiously — the negative reviews carry significant real-world weight beyond what the numeric average alone conveys.

Weather Master demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians frequently praised for politeness, knowledge, and efficiency. However, the company is significantly undermined by pervasive pricing concerns—customers consistently report markups of 300-1000% on parts and labor, aggressive upselling tactics, and lack of transparency in quotes. Project completion is inconsistent, with numerous reports of missed appointments, no-shows, and delayed follow-ups. While individual technicians often perform quality work, systemic issues around scheduling, communication, and business practices create a pattern of customer dissatisfaction that outweighs technical competence.

• PRICING PATTERN: Extremely consistent complaints across 89 reviews about excessive markups (parts marked up 10X cost, labor rates $300-950/hour). This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Multiple reviews describe high-pressure sales tactics, creation of false problems, and recommendations for unnecessary replacements. Pattern suggests possible commission-based incentives.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 35+ reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, failure to call ahead, and inability to honor promised time windows despite paid service contracts.
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTION: Two identical reviews (Andy water heater, dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03) with identical text suggest possible review manipulation. However, most recent reviews (May-June 2025) show genuine variation and specificity, so overall fake review risk is LIMITED.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2025 (recent) and 2013-2019 (older). Recent reviews (past 12 months) show similar patterns to older reviews, indicating systemic issues persist.
• FINANCING TRAP: Multiple reviews warn of predatory financing terms (11-month vs 12-month promotional periods, liens on homes, high interest if deadline missed).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Work quality varies dramatically by technician. Some receive 5-star praise; others are described as rude, incompetent, or deliberately creating problems.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to 365 reviews with consistent patterns across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical bifurcation: technician-level professionalism and experience are genuinely strong (75+), but company-level pricing practices, scheduling reliability, and business ethics are severely problematic (52 for pricing). Customers should expect quality work but prepare for significant cost overruns, aggressive sales pressure, and scheduling frustration. The company's business model appears designed to maximize revenue per service call rather than customer satisfaction.

Progressive Plumbing and its associated entities receive broadly positive marks for professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising named technicians such as Daniel, Victor, Marcus, Justin, and Roberto for being courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, arbitrary, or deceptive — including instances of verbal quotes being exceeded, refusal to itemize bills, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed promptly and well, there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, callbacks that were never honored, and at least one case of a job left incomplete with damage caused. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range significantly suppresses the overall score.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews reference 'San Bruno Plumbing' as the company name, while the majority reference 'Progressive Plumbing' or 'Progressive Service Company.' These may be distinct businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together, which would make the composite score unreliable.
• FAKE OR PADDING REVIEW CONCERN: At least 30+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent rating volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review for Marcus ('came on time in fact earlier than expected... cost was fair, lower than expected') appears verbatim on both 2025-05-19 and 2025-05-16. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. A significant portion of negative pricing and project completion reviews date from 2017–2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated — they appear across many years, many technicians, and many job types (water heaters, toilet repairs, faucet installs, drain clearing). This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as outliers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians performing unauthorized work, billing tenants without owner approval, leaving job sites in disarray, being rude or dismissive, and in one case potentially misusing a credit card. These are serious conduct flags.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no follow-up communication was made. This is a recurring project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing complaints, suspected entity mixing between 'Progressive Plumbing' and 'San Bruno Plumbing,' a high volume of blank filler reviews, and recurring patterns of no-shows and incomplete work that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.

Bradley Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across a large review set spanning roughly 2006 to 2025. Recent reviews (2022–2025) are overwhelmingly positive, praising responsiveness, fair pricing, professionalism, and quality workmanship on water heaters, softeners, and filtration systems. However, a substantial cluster of older negative reviews (2013–2020) describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, no-shows, unreturned calls, property damage, hidden fees, and work left incomplete or done incorrectly. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly reporting that work was left unfinished or that the plumber disappeared after partial payment. Pricing scores are pulled down by complaints of undisclosed fees, overcharging, and charges for unauthorized work, despite many recent customers praising affordability. The overall score reflects a business that appears to have improved significantly in recent years but carries a meaningful historical record of serious service failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of nearly identical reviews exist — the 'hose bib' review (2024-09-12 and 2024-09-02) and the 'water softener go-to plumber' review (2023-06-10 and 2022-08-25) appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates, possibly submitted twice or copied. These were counted once each for scoring purposes.
• MULTIPLE STAFF NAMES DETECTED: Reviews reference 'Bradley,' 'Brad,' 'Troy Bradley,' 'Greg Bradley,' 'Greg,' 'Matt,' 'Jeff,' and 'Joe' as the plumber or owner. This strongly suggests either multiple different businesses operating under the 'Bradley Plumbing' name across different states and time periods, or a single business with inconsistent branding. Reviews from 2012–2016 referencing 'North St. Paul' and 'Greg' likely represent a different business or operator than the Arizona-based 'Brad/Troy' reviews from 2019–2025. This significantly undermines the reliability of treating all reviews as one entity.
• TEMPORAL SPLIT — POSSIBLE BUSINESS CHANGE OR OWNERSHIP TRANSITION: Negative reviews are heavily concentrated in 2013–2020, while positive reviews dominate 2021–2025. This could indicate a change in ownership, operator, or business practices, or it may reflect the mixing of two distinct businesses sharing the same name.
• BLANK AND CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews contained no text (blank, a single emoji, a period, or 'unknown'). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are strongly positive. If this is the current Arizona-based operation, recent performance appears solid. However, the historical negative record cannot be ignored.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviewers across different time periods explicitly reported that the plumber scheduled appointments and failed to appear without notice, and at least 3 reviewers reported jobs being abandoned mid-project with no follow-up. This is a significant pattern affecting project completion scores.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Multiple older reviews describe property damage (scratched tub, chipped vanity, cracked tile, stained carpet, caulk mess) with no remediation offered, which materially impacts professionalism and experience scores.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to strong evidence that reviews span multiple distinct business entities or operators sharing the 'Bradley Plumbing' name across different states and time periods, the presence of duplicate reviews, a stark temporal split between negative and positive feedback, and serious historical complaints about abandoned work and property damage that cannot be dismissed even if recent performance has improved.

Mr. Rooter shows a genuinely split performance profile across its review history. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple credible complaints about poor dispatch communication, missed appointments, rude office staff, and technicians attempting to leave before verifying completed work. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with numerous detailed, specific complaints about charges that reviewers describe as grossly disproportionate to the work performed — including $450 for 15 minutes of work, $700 for an hour of pipe repair, $2,500 for a sewer drain, and $350 for a 10-minute cartridge swap — offset only partially by a smaller number of reviewers who praised fair or transparent pricing. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished same-day and efficiently, but several reviews describe abandoned follow-through, warranty refusals, technicians leaving before testing work, and a multi-day clogged drain saga that ended with the customer seeking a competitor. Experience scores are similarly divided, with skilled technicians like Jacko, Brian, and Matt praised by name, while other technicians are described as incompetent, careless, or attempting substandard repairs.

• 18 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence inflates the apparent review count and average star rating without contributing meaningful data.
• A cluster of 22 reviews share the exact date '2021-06-10' with no text or minimal text, which is a strong indicator of bulk-imported or placeholder reviews. This pattern is suspicious and may artificially inflate the total review count.
• Multiple reviews are older than 3 years (2013–2019), and business quality appears inconsistent across time periods. Recent 2025 reviews skew positive, but the older negative reviews contain highly specific, credible detail that cannot be dismissed.
• Pricing complaints are unusually specific and consistent across multiple independent reviewers spanning 2015–2023, suggesting a systemic pricing practice rather than isolated incidents. This is a significant red flag for prospective customers.
• One reviewer explicitly questioned whether positive reviews were paid or fake, noting the contrast between their experience and the high ratings. While this alone is not conclusive, combined with the bulk-date cluster, it warrants caution.

The WW Score of 68.2 is based on a high volume of reviews with usable text, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a suspicious cluster of no-text reviews sharing identical dates, a wide quality variance between named technicians, and a persistent pattern of credible pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score.

Service Experts demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and knowledge. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns—customers repeatedly report markups of 300-800% on parts, diagnostic fees that seem excessive, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is mixed, with many reports of incomplete work, multiple callbacks, and scheduling failures. The company's Advantage Program lease model is particularly controversial, with numerous complaints about predatory terms and hidden costs. While individual technicians often perform well, systemic issues with sales practices, pricing transparency, and follow-through significantly undermine customer satisfaction.

• STRONG PATTERN OF PRICING COMPLAINTS: Approximately 287 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, with customers reporting parts marked up 300-800% above retail, diagnostic fees of $99-$175 for simple issues, and labor rates of $150-$300+ per hour. This is the single most consistent complaint across the entire review set.
• PREDATORY ADVANTAGE PROGRAM: Multiple reviews describe the lease-based Advantage Program as a scam, with customers paying $140-$300/month for 7-10 years, totaling $12,000-$36,000 for equipment worth $5,000-$8,000. Customers report being misled about ownership, early termination penalties of 50-94% of original cost, and liens placed on homes without clear disclosure.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING AND SALES TACTICS: Approximately 180+ reviews describe high-pressure sales tactics, including sending salesmen without customer consent, recommending unnecessary replacements, and using fear tactics about system failure. Technicians appear incentivized by commission to recommend expensive upgrades.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY AND MULTIPLE CALLBACKS: Approximately 120+ reviews report technicians returning multiple times to fix the same issue, incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, and poor workmanship. Some customers report 3-6 visits for single problems.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW ISSUES: Approximately 95+ reviews report missed appointments, no-shows without notification, late arrivals, and poor communication about delays. Several customers report waiting 4+ hours with no contact.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSTICS: Approximately 85+ reviews describe technicians making false diagnoses (claiming units need replacement when only minor repairs needed), deliberately breaking equipment during service, or misidentifying problems. Multiple customers report getting second opinions that contradicted Service Experts' diagnosis.
• POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND UNRESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT: Approximately 110+ reviews report difficulty reaching management, unanswered callbacks, refusal to honor warranties or service agreements, and dismissive treatment of complaints.
• ADVANTAGE PROGRAM HIDDEN TERMS: Multiple reviews describe discovering liens on homes, inability to refinance, non-transferable leases, and surprise charges after signing. Customers report being told one thing verbally and finding different terms in fine print.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 2025 and June 2006 contain nearly identical phrasing ('Hays/Hayes was on time, professional, friendly...', 'Ali came over...genuine, efficient, knowledgeable...'), suggesting possible review manipulation. These appear clustered by date.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: Multiple reviews report incorrect installations, wrong equipment sizes, improper wiring, missing permits, failed inspections, and equipment that failed within days of installation.
• MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FAILURES: Approximately 60+ reviews describe maintenance contracts that were not honored, services not performed despite payment, and inability to use contracted services within specified timeframes.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (1,000 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions. However, the score masks a deeply problematic company: while technicians are often professional and knowledgeable, systemic issues with pricing, sales practices, and contract terms create significant customer harm. The pricing dimension (38.2) is particularly reliable and represents the company's most serious weakness. Potential customers should be aware that low individual technician ratings are frequently contradicted by complaints about company-level practices, hidden fees, and aggressive sales tactics. The presence of potential fake reviews in specific date clusters slightly reduces confidence in the overall rating distribution, but does not materially affect the validity of the core findings about pricing and sales practices, which are corroborated across hundreds of independent reviews.