Find Nearby Plumbers In Raleigh, North Carolina

NuBlue/Ease Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising friendliness, punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across many years of reviews. Project completion is also solid, with most jobs described as finished efficiently and on time, and at least one notable instance of the company returning at no charge to make a job right. Experience scores well given repeated mentions of knowledgeable technicians who explained issues clearly and solved difficult problems other plumbers could not. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: multiple reviewers explicitly called the company expensive, one declined service due to cost, one alleged overcharging of $350 for 20 minutes of work, one reported a $756 bill they felt was excessive, and one reported being denied an itemized breakdown — these are serious and recurring concerns that substantially lower the pricing dimension. The WW Score of approximately 79 reflects a company that delivers quality, professional service but carries a meaningful and consistent pattern of pricing complaints that prospective customers should investigate carefully.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: At least 8 reviews explicitly flag pricing as expensive, excessive, or unfair. One reviewer was charged $350 for 20 minutes of work and reported the owner did not return calls. Another paid $756.86 for a drain clearing and believed it was excessive after researching market rates. One reviewer was denied an itemized bill breakdown. One declined service entirely due to cost. This is a statistically significant and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two reviews dated 2022-04-13 and 2022-04-15 are nearly word-for-word identical (Hal and Jose review). This appears to be the same review submitted twice. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2020-01-29 (six reviews on the same day) use very similar generic praise language with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution. Confidence is not reduced to LOW but this is noted.
• ONE REVIEW IS UNINTELLIGIBLE: The review consisting only of '************' (2020-06-26) provides no usable data and was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2019 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) remain consistent with historical patterns. No significant quality decline or improvement trend detected in recent reviews.
• INCOMPLETE JOB FLAG: One review (2022-06-10, rating 0.5) explicitly states the technician could not complete the job — unable to drill to locate a leak or open the wall to find damage. This is a project completion failure and was factored into the project completion score.
• DISHONESTY FLAG: One review (2024-01-02, rating 3.0) alleges a technician lied about running a camera and attempted to upsell a $15,000 job that was not needed. The reviewer obtained a second opinion and saved thousands. This is a serious integrity concern and was weighted accordingly.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (125) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence overall; however, the recurring and specific pricing complaints — including alleged overcharging, lack of billing transparency, and one allegation of dishonest upselling — represent a material risk that the score alone does not fully capture, and prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain itemized quotes in writing before authorizing any work.

Midtown Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness across multiple technicians including Jason, David, Tim, and Tracy. Experience scores are also solid, with multiple reviewers citing skilled diagnostics, problem-solving, and quality workmanship — including one notable case where Midtown correctly identified a problem three other companies missed. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as fully finished and followed through, but is tempered by two notable negative reviews: one describing abandoned/sloppy sewer pipe work and one describing a scheduling failure where the company did not show up on the correct day and then canceled the rescheduled appointment. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different years explicitly calling out high or unfair pricing — including charges of $475 for toilet rebuilds, $175 for a 10-minute valve replacement, and $400 for a running toilet repair — partially offset by reviews praising competitive or fair pricing.

• 5 reviews contain no text at all (only a 5-star rating with no written content) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A large cluster of reviews share the same date of 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10, which may reflect batch imports or review solicitation campaigns rather than organic posting. Language varies sufficiently to avoid a fake review determination, but the date clustering warrants caution.
• One review (2025-05-10, Peter) is rated 5 stars but explicitly criticizes pricing as reflecting 'corporate greed' — the star rating does not match the written sentiment on the pricing dimension, and the written content was weighted over the star rating for scoring purposes.
• The negative scheduling/cancellation review (2021-06-16) describes the owner laughing at a crying customer and canceling service as retaliation for a threatened negative review — this is a serious conduct flag that weighs against professionalism despite being a single incident.
• Several reviews are more than 3 years old (2012–2021). Per recency rules, reviews from 2025 and 2024 were weighted more heavily. Older negative pricing reviews (2016, 2017) were still counted as they reflect a consistent pattern corroborated by more recent pricing complaints.
• The review from 2021-06-29 describes sloppy sewer pipe work, exposed pipe left unreplaced, and poor communication — this is a meaningful project completion failure that was factored into the project completion score.
• The review from 2019-09-09 (2-star) describes a 3-day callback failure with no response — this negatively impacts both professionalism and project completion scores.
• The review from 2018-10-29 (2-star) describes refusal to treat no hot water as an emergency for a repeat customer — factored into professionalism and responsiveness scoring.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews with usable content spanning 2012–2025, with strong data density across all four dimensions; the score is considered moderately reliable overall, though the pricing dimension reflects a consistent multi-year pattern of complaints that meaningfully drags the composite score, and the conduct-related flag from 2021 introduces reputational risk not fully captured by numeric scoring alone.

Turner Plumbing (operating under R&S Plumbing and associated with Roman, Terry, and Rob) earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of reviews praising honest pricing, professional demeanor, and solid workmanship. Pricing is a standout theme — many reviewers explicitly note coming in under estimate, being far cheaper than competitors, and avoiding unnecessary upsells — though two negative reviews cite overcharging and inflated travel fees, which temper the pricing score meaningfully. Professionalism scores well overall but is pulled down by three notable negative reviews describing rude attitudes, condescension, and a phone hang-up, which are serious red flags that cannot be ignored. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished promptly and correctly, but one review details an 8.5-hour billing debacle on a simple repair, reducing confidence in consistency. Experience is consistently praised across many reviews, with customers highlighting correct diagnosis, quality workmanship, and proactive advice, though the negative reviews suggest occasional lapses in technical judgment or honesty.

• Three reviews (1-star) describe rude, condescending, or dismissive behavior — one involving a phone hang-up, one involving a post-service attitude dispute, and one involving a bait-and-switch price increase on arrival. These are credible and specific complaints that meaningfully reduce the professionalism score.
• One 1-star review describes a highly suspicious billing situation: 8.5 hours charged for a repair previously completed in under 1 hour, with time wasted on a defective part rather than pausing the job. This is a significant project completion and experience concern.
• One 1-star review alleges a 1-hour travel charge for a 1.2-mile, 3-minute drive, and a grossly inflated repair estimate compared to competitors. This is a credible pricing concern that offsets the many positive pricing mentions.
• Several reviews are older than 5 years (2013–2016 range) and reference 'Roman' as the primary operator. More recent reviews (2019–2024) reference 'Rob' (Roman's son) as the current operator. The business has effectively transitioned ownership, so older reviews may not fully reflect current service quality. Recency weighting applied.
• Some generic 5-star reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Terry Turner and his crew are reliable!' or 'Very courteous and professional.') and were treated as low-information data points. No strong fake review pattern detected, but a handful of reviews lack specificity.
• Multiple plumber names appear across reviews (Roman, Terry, Rob, Robert) — this may reflect different operators or family members working under the same brand at different times, which introduces some inconsistency in what the reviews are actually measuring.

This WW Score is based on 36 reviews spanning over a decade, with a meaningful split between highly positive and credibly negative experiences; the score is moderately reliable for general guidance but prospective customers should weigh the specific negative reviews carefully, particularly regarding pricing transparency and post-service attitude, and should note that the business has transitioned from Roman to Rob as primary operator, making reviews from 2016 and earlier less predictive of current service.

Rain or Shine Landscapes earns strong marks across most dimensions, with project completion and experience standing out as consistent strengths — multiple reviewers praised the quality of workmanship, technical problem-solving, and the team's willingness to stand behind completed work at no extra charge. Professionalism scores are solid but are meaningfully dragged down by one detailed 1-star review describing a no-show estimate appointment and poor communication, which cannot be dismissed. Pricing is the most mixed dimension: several reviewers praised fair or reasonable pricing, but one reviewer reported a final bill nearly double the estimate ($845 vs. roughly $420), which is a significant red flag for pricing transparency and must be weighted accordingly. Overall, the contractor demonstrates genuine competence and follow-through but has documented gaps in communication and cost transparency that prevent a top-tier score.

• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2021) reported a final cost of $845 against an estimate of approximately half that amount, citing $150/hour labor and a 5-hour job. This suggests potential issues with estimate accuracy or transparency and meaningfully lowers the pricing score.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2019) describes a no-show estimate appointment where the contractor drove by without stopping, did not call the customer, and only responded after the customer made multiple follow-up calls. This is a concrete, specific complaint and is treated as credible.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several reviews are from 2017–2020, which are more than 3 years old at time of analysis. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) are generally positive, but the older reviews carry reduced weight. The pricing complaint and no-show complaint are both from 2019–2021, so they are not recent but are not negligible.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Multiple reviews include specific project details, dates, and named individuals. One negative review uses a borrowed account and explains why, adding credibility. No suspicious uniformity detected.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning 2017–2023 with usable data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence on every dimension, making it a reasonably reliable assessment, though the score would benefit from a larger and more recent review sample to confirm whether the pricing and professionalism issues have been resolved.

Lasen's Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising his responsiveness, punctuality, and ability to complete jobs quickly and effectively. Project completion is the strongest dimension, with 11 of 12 reviews confirming work was finished promptly and thoroughly, often going beyond the original scope (e.g., remounting a sink, running to Lowes for a part). Pricing is generally described as reasonable and affordable, though one reviewer found his quote $100 higher than a competitor and was then surprised by an undisclosed $80 trip fee, which meaningfully drags the pricing and professionalism scores down. That single negative review is significant because it raises a transparency concern — an undisclosed trip charge is a material issue that affects trust, not just a minor complaint. Experience scores well based on multiple reviewers describing skilled, efficient, and knowledgeable work across a variety of plumbing tasks.

• One review (2024-10-18) raises a notable concern about an undisclosed $80 trip fee that was not communicated prior to the visit and is not documented on the contractor's profile. This is a transparency and professionalism issue that warrants caution.
• The same negative review also noted scheduling miscommunications, suggesting responsiveness may be inconsistent.
• Three reviews are from 2022, which are now over 2 years old. While they are positive, more recent reviews (2023–2024) carry greater weight and include the only negative review in the dataset.
• Several reviews use generic praise phrases ('great guy,' 'highly recommend,' 'on time') with limited specifics, though enough reviews include concrete details (specific jobs, behaviors, pricing context) to suggest the overall review set is authentic.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, but the uniformly high ratings (11 of 12 are 5-star) with only one outlier warrants mild caution — real contractor profiles occasionally suppress or lack negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning 2022–2024 with usable data across all four dimensions, giving it HIGH overall confidence, though the single negative review regarding an undisclosed fee is a meaningful signal that prospective customers should verify pricing and trip charge policies explicitly before booking.

Cary Plumbing Company earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, positive reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited dimension, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and responsive office staff — though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite rude phone interactions, poor follow-through on callbacks, and dismissive responses to complaints. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with many customers noting competitive quotes and honest billing, but several credible negative reviews describe hidden charges, billing disputes, and overpricing that prevent a higher score. Project completion is strong overall — most jobs are described as completed on time and correctly — but recurring complaints about repeat visits needed to fix the same issue, one instance of a no-show, and a disputed warranty refusal temper the score. Experience scores well, with numerous reviewers highlighting skilled diagnostics, creative problem-solving, and high-quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe technicians lacking the tools or knowledge to complete certain jobs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Great Workmanship. They care about the quality of the work they do...' appears twice with nearly identical text and ratings, posted just 3 days apart (2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04). This is a likely duplicate or fake review and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'I am doubling down on this negative review...' appears twice with identical text (2024-11-08 and 2024-10-14). Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 12 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 80+) are from 2024–2025 and carry full weight. Approximately 40+ reviews date from 2011–2022 and were given reduced weighting in scoring. The overall pattern is consistent across time periods.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: There are 12 substantive 1-star or low-star reviews raising serious concerns including: hidden charges added after job completion, refusal to honor warranty work, incorrect installations, rude staff, missed appointments, and at least one instance of work not up to code (gas line permit issue). These are credible, specific, and detailed complaints that meaningfully reduce scores.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. Most positive reviews include specific technician names, job descriptions, and contextual detail, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, the duplicate review and a small number of very generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service', 'Good Company', 'Honest people and great work') slightly elevate concern.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and predominantly detailed review set spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall reliability — however, the presence of 12 substantive negative reviews (including billing disputes, warranty refusals, and a code-compliance concern) and duplicate entries mean consumers should read negative reviews carefully before hiring.