Find Nearby Plumbers In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Black Horse Pike Plumbing and Heating has a generally positive reputation for professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior — particularly highlighting Charlie and owner Bob Priest. However, professionalism scores are tempered by one review noting a technician who spent excessive time talking without resolving the issue, and another describing poor handling of an incomplete repair. Pricing is a notable mixed point: several reviewers praised affordability and fair pricing, while one reviewer was so put off by an initial quote that they declined service entirely, and one explicitly noted the company is not the cheapest. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with one review explicitly stating a contracted repair was left unresolved and the situation was handled poorly, and a 2008 review noting the technician could not fix the diagnosed problem — these drag the score down meaningfully. Experience scores are moderate-to-positive overall, with strong praise for technical knowledge and code compliance from some reviewers, offset by the failed diagnosis and incomplete repair noted in others.

• Two reviews (2022 and 2008) explicitly describe failed or incomplete repairs — this is a meaningful signal for project completion and experience dimensions and was weighted accordingly.
• One review (2015) describes a quote so high the reviewer declined service without any work being performed — pricing score reflects this negative data point alongside positive pricing mentions.
• Several positive reviews are older than 3 years (2015, 2019, 2021), and only one review is from the past 12 months (2024). Recency weighting was applied; the 2024 review is positive and specific, which is a good recent signal, but the sample is thin for recent performance.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in rating, detail level, and writing style, which suggests authentic submissions. The 2015 generic 5-star review ('Everything turned out just fine and they were in out very quickly') is low-detail but not conclusively fake.
• Total review count is low (8 reviews), which limits the reliability of all dimension scores despite HIGH confidence labels based on mention counts.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient to generate HIGH confidence labels per scoring rules, but the absolute review volume is very small (8 reviews spanning 16 years), two reviews document clear service failures, and only one review is from the past 12 months, meaning this score should be treated as a directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, citing courteous behavior, clear communication, punctuality, and transparency throughout the repair process. Project completion is consistently affirmed across all reviews, with problems resolved efficiently and in a timely manner. Experience is supported by mentions of plumbers diagnosing and solving issues competently, including adapting when challenges arose. Pricing is only mentioned in one review, which describes it as 'very reasonable,' making that dimension low-confidence. Overall the reviews are positive, but the very small sample size and the age of two of the three reviews significantly limit reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation; results should be treated with caution.
• Two of the three reviews are more than 3 years old (2020 and 2015), and one is over 9 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces confidence in current service quality.
• The most recent review is from April 2021, meaning no reviews from the past 12 months are present in this dataset.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and named individuals, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 3 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive measure of current service quality.

ACA Contracting scores well across all four dimensions based on a small but consistently positive set of reviews. Professionalism is the strongest and most frequently mentioned dimension, with all five reviewers noting attributes such as punctuality, helpfulness, courtesy, and responsiveness — including a same-day emergency visit during a heat wave. Project completion is supported by four reviews, with specific mentions of jobs finished fully, on time, and to a clean standard. Experience is similarly well-supported, with reviewers praising tile work, material selection guidance, precise measurements, and overall workmanship quality. Pricing is the least evidenced dimension, mentioned in only two reviews with general references to fairness and cost, warranting a conservative score.

• Only 5 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary rather than definitive.
• Three of the five reviews are dated between 2009 and 2011 — over a decade old. Only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. The score is heavily influenced by potentially outdated experiences.
• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a 15-year span warrant mild caution.
• The 2024 review references 'Dwayne' while older reviews reference 'Mr. Hernandez' and 'Abe' as the owner — this may indicate ownership or staffing changes over time, which could affect the reliability of older reviews as indicators of current service quality.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review count, a 15-year date spread with only one recent review, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback — consumers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Three of the four reviews contained usable content, with one review being entirely blank. Professionalism was the most consistently mentioned dimension, with reviewers noting punctuality, courtesy, cleanliness, and proactive communication when running late. Project completion and experience received limited but positive mentions, including references to jobs being well done and suggestions offered for future work. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so that dimension could not be scored. All reviews are over 10 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• One review (2014-09-04) contains no text — it was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• All reviews are dated between 2013 and 2014, making them over 10 years old. This score may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• Only 4 total reviews were provided, which is a very small sample size. The WW Score should be treated with caution.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension could not be evaluated at all.
• With only 2 mentions each, the Project Completion and Experience scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be interpreted conservatively.

This WW Score carries low overall reliability due to a very small review sample, entirely outdated reviews (all 10+ years old), and the absence of any pricing data — it should not be used as a definitive measure of this contractor's current performance.

Dan consistently receives praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and a friendly demeanor, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting he showed up on time and communicated well. Pricing is described as fair and reasonable across three reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. All reviewed jobs appear to have been completed successfully with no mention of abandoned work or callbacks needed, though the small review pool limits confidence. Workmanship quality is positively referenced through successful installations and a reviewer noting Dan helped source quality products, but technical depth of commentary is limited. Overall the picture is positive, but the very small sample size and age of several reviews significantly constrain reliability.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2019 and one is from 2010 — only one review (2020) falls within a reasonably recent window. The 2010 review is over a decade old and may not reflect current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While no identical phrasing was detected, the absence of any critical feedback across all reviews warrants mild caution. This may reflect genuine satisfaction but could also reflect a non-representative sample.
• The 2010 review is extremely dated (14+ years old at time of analysis) and was given minimal weight in scoring.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning over a decade, with the majority of reviews being 4–14 years old, making it a low-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

All three reviews speak positively across every dimension, with mentions of fair pricing, good workmanship, responsive communication, and completed jobs. Professionalism is supported by references to pleasant staff, COVID precautions, tidiness, and office responsiveness. Pricing is explicitly called fair or reasonable in all three reviews, and one review even cites a specific low dollar amount as evidence of value. Project completion is affirmed by same-day turnaround on a water heater replacement and successful multi-task jobs with no mention of unfinished work. Experience is supported by descriptions of proficient technicians, quality workmanship, and useful technical advice. However, all scores are tempered by the very small sample size of only three reviews, the oldest of which is nearly a decade old.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which warrants caution, though each review contains specific details that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Recency concern: Two of the three reviews are more than 5 years old (2015 and 2018), and only one review is from the past 5 years (2020). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• The most recent review is from October 2020 — over 4 years ago — meaning there is no recent data to confirm the contractor is still operating at the same standard.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small number of reviews and the age of the data; prospective customers should seek more recent feedback before making a hiring decision.