Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

Lane Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism, experience, and project completion. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and technical expertise, with owner Jimmy Lane frequently praised for phone diagnostics and personalized service. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers reporting charges that feel excessive relative to work performed, including concerns about job-based pricing, travel time charges, and parts markups. While most recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal recurring pricing complaints and occasional service failures that suggest inconsistency over time.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly criticize pricing as unfair, excessive, or deceptive. Complaints include: $175 minimum fee charged for no work performed, labor rates 3x normal ($175/hr), parts marked up significantly (e.g., $125 for items costing <$40), double quotes, and charges for travel time. This is a material pattern.
• SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Older reviews (2013-2018) contain serious complaints about incomplete work, missed appointments, and poor diagnostics (e.g., water heater leak misdiagnosed, burst pipe emergency not returned, slab work done incorrectly). Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, suggesting either significant company improvement or potential review manipulation.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW SKEW: The dataset shows a stark temporal divide: pre-2020 reviews contain 12 one-star ratings and multiple serious complaints; post-2023 reviews contain almost exclusively 5-star ratings with minimal critical detail. This pattern warrants caution regarding recency bias or selective review posting.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 3 reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, or failure to return calls despite promises, including one emergency service call that went unanswered.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished or requiring callbacks (e.g., hole not filled, drip not resolved on first visit, multiple trips needed for septic work).
• DISCOUNT POLICY VIOLATION: One review explicitly states advertised senior/veteran discounts were not honored.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently strong and support a score in the 82-86 range, the historical pattern of serious pricing complaints, service failures, and communication breakdowns suggests the company may have improved significantly or that recent reviews may not fully represent customer experience. The pricing dimension is particularly unreliable due to conflicting narratives: many customers report fair pricing, but a substantial minority report excessive charges. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written estimates, clarify labor rates and travel charges upfront, and verify any advertised discounts before committing.

Urban Handyman (primarily Dehn/Chris) demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strengths in professionalism (84.5) and experience/craftsmanship (85.0). Pricing is fair and transparent (82.0), and project completion is solid (78.5). However, the score is tempered by a notable pattern of negative reviews citing interpersonal issues—specifically rudeness, hostility, and arrogance—which appear in approximately 6 reviews spanning 2011–2015. While the vast majority of reviews (61 of 67) are 5-star ratings praising punctuality, quality work, and fair pricing, the consistency of complaints about attitude and communication style suggests these are genuine concerns rather than isolated incidents. The contractor's responsiveness and technical competence are widely praised, but interpersonal friction represents a meaningful risk factor.

• Pattern of negative reviews citing rudeness and hostile attitude (6 reviews: 2015-09-25, 2013-06-25, 2013-07-30, 2011-11-21, 2011-11-01, and one additional 1-star review). These complaints span multiple years and appear credible and specific.
• One detailed negative review (2016-10-24, 2-star) documents incomplete work on weather-stripping installation with gaps and air leaks, requiring customer to fix the problem themselves. Contractor offered additional paid services rather than correcting the original work.
• One review (2011-11-21, 1-star) reports incomplete plumbing work (toilet unclogging) that failed within one month, with contractor offering no warranty or accountability.
• One review (2018-05-28, 1-star) indicates contractor was not accepting new clients but had not updated advertising, wasting potential customer's time.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2011–2015 (older than 8 years). More recent reviews (2015 onward) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement in service or customer selection over time.
• High concentration of 5-star reviews (61 of 67) with very similar positive language (punctual, professional, fair pricing, quality work, cleaned up) across many reviews. While not necessarily fake, the uniformity warrants noting that negative experiences may be underrepresented in the dataset.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for assessing technical competence and professionalism in task execution, but customers should be aware of documented interpersonal friction and attitude concerns that appear in a meaningful minority of reviews; the score reflects strong work quality but masks a notable customer service risk that may not be apparent from the overall number alone.

Lloyd of Maintenance Men on Call demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and friendliness. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting unexpectedly high charges, lack of upfront quotes, and perceived overpricing relative to actual work performed. Two critical failures—a complete no-show with no communication and a bathroom remodel with substandard workmanship using inappropriate materials—substantially impact overall reliability. The WW Score of 79.8 reflects strong operational execution tempered by serious concerns about pricing transparency and occasional lapses in quality control.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Four reviews explicitly cite high or unexpected charges (2018-02-13: $240 for $20 part; 2018-01-22: $475 quote deemed excessive; 2018-02-06: positive comparison to competitors; 2020-08-07: customer defends high price). This pattern suggests pricing may not be transparent or consistently fair.
• CRITICAL FAILURE - NO-SHOW: 2022-12-19 review documents complete failure to appear for scheduled appointment with zero communication or follow-up. This is a severe professionalism breach.
• CRITICAL FAILURE - SUBSTANDARD WORKMANSHIP: 2021-04-08 review details multiple professional errors (inappropriate Sharkbite fittings, inadequate toilet flange repair, $700 charge for work requiring professional redo). Customer received no response to concerns via email.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2015-2019 (older than 5 years). Only 5 reviews from 2022 or later. Recent reviews show both extreme highs (5.0) and extreme lows (1.0), suggesting inconsistent service quality or potential reliability issues in recent period.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: 2016-06-03 review notes Lloyd said he could do additional tasks but never responded to follow-up email. 2021-04-08 review confirms no response to email concerns about poor work.
• PATTERN ALERT: Three 1-star reviews (2022-12-19, 2021-04-08, 2018-02-13, 2018-01-22) all cite serious issues (no-show, poor workmanship, overpricing, rudeness). While most reviews are 5-star, the negative reviews describe fundamental service failures rather than minor complaints.

This WW Score should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence in the data. While the volume of reviews (40) and consistency of positive feedback on professionalism and completion are strong, the presence of critical failures (no-show, substandard work, unresponsive communication), persistent pricing concerns, and heavy skew toward older reviews (pre-2020) suggest the score may overstate current reliability. The contractor appears capable of excellent work but demonstrates inconsistent execution and transparency, particularly regarding pricing and follow-through on complex projects.

Shawn Welch Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. All three reviews explicitly praise professionalism, communication, and customer service, with customers highlighting responsiveness, patience, and a friendly demeanor. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable and cost-effective across multiple reviews. Project completion is evidenced by successful problem resolution, including prevention of water damage and restoration of non-functional fixtures. Technical skill is demonstrated through efficient diagnostics and effective solutions. However, the sample size is small (3 reviews) and the oldest review dates to 2019, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional reviews before making high-confidence business decisions
• Review dates span 4+ years (2019–2023); most recent review is from August 2023, but older reviews may not reflect current service standards
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback or specific problem mentions is atypical and should be noted

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated as a preliminary indicator only; with only 3 reviews and moderate confidence across all dimensions, additional customer feedback is needed to establish a reliable long-term performance baseline.

Full Stack Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across professionalism and project completion dimensions. All three reviews explicitly praise same-day emergency response, quick turnaround times, and high-quality workmanship. Professionalism is consistently highlighted through responsive communication, willingness to go above and beyond (e.g., Mitchell retrieving missing parts), and courteous service. However, pricing is never mentioned in any review, preventing evaluation of value for money or fairness. The limited sample size (3 reviews) and absence of pricing data constrain overall confidence, though the consistency of positive feedback across multiple emergency scenarios is noteworthy.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — may indicate selection bias or limited negative review visibility
• Review from 2022-11-24 is primarily promotional/informational rather than a customer experience review
• Most recent review is from January 2024; oldest is from November 2022 — recency is acceptable but sample remains limited

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and complete absence of pricing feedback. The score reflects strong professionalism and project completion based on consistent evidence, but broader market validation with more reviews and pricing data is needed before making high-confidence business decisions.

Michael and Son Services demonstrates consistently strong professionalism and technical experience across a very large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and thoroughness. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as finished correctly and in a timely manner, though a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes incomplete work, a unit left non-functional after a tune-up, a plumber who replaced a pipe with the same brittle material causing a repeat failure, and a technician who left a shutoff switch off causing a cold night for a sick customer. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out charges as outrageous, excessive, or 2.5 to 3 times higher than competitors, and at least two reviewers describing what they perceived as dishonest upselling or inflated repair recommendations. The score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and courteous technicians but a systemic pricing and occasional quality-control problem that meaningfully drags down the overall picture.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The entire block of reviews dated 2025-06-08 appears to be an exact duplicate of the block dated 2025-06-06, including identical review text, ratings, and reviewer content. These duplicates were identified and counted only once per unique review to avoid score inflation.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contained a star rating (all 5-star) but zero review text. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, though they are noted as a potential padding pattern.
• UPSELL / PRICING MISCONDUCT FLAGS: Multiple independent reviewers (garbage disposal at $900 vs $370 market rate; sump pump quote of $6,000 vs $520 DIY cost; blower motor part quoted at $1,500 vs $500 actual; capacitor and compressor both claimed bad when only capacitor needed replacing; ceiling fan repair described as 'way too expensive'; technician who refused to enter crawl space and pushed a $6,000 restoration job that a competitor fixed in 10 minutes) suggest a systemic pattern of upselling or inflated pricing that goes beyond isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY CONCERNS: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly the first time, including a toilet repaired for $500 that broke again within two months with only a one-month warranty honored, a pipe replaced with the same brittle material causing a second failure, a unit left non-functioning after a tune-up, and a technician who left a shutoff switch off requiring a second service call.
• NEGATIVE CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe dismissive or condescending attitudes from technicians or management, including one long-term customer of 10+ years who was denied a short payment deferral after spending over $20,000 with the company historically.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are therefore within the 12-month recency window. A small number of reviews date to 2023 and were given slightly reduced weight.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate review blocks, a significant number of blank 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate the raw rating average, and a credible and recurring pattern of pricing complaints and upsell behavior that suggests the company's technician-level quality is meaningfully better than its pricing and business-practice integrity.