Find Nearby Plumbers In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Cherry Hill Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (89.5) and experience (88.0). The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with extensive evidence of knowledgeable work and customer education. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable, with multiple reviews highlighting competitive quotes compared to competitors. Project completion is solid, though a small number of reviews indicate occasional follow-up delays on estimates. The WW Score of 87.2 reflects a reliable, well-regarded contractor with strong fundamentals across professionalism, pricing, completion, and expertise.

• Three blank/empty reviews detected (no text provided, only 5-star ratings on 2021-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2017-06-11) — these were excluded from analysis as unusable data.
• Four negative reviews (ratings 1.0 and 2.0) identified: (1) No-show appointment (2020-06-10, 1.0 star); (2) Ceiling damage and unprofessional behavior with boots on carpet (2018-05-24, 1.0 star); (3) Religious proselytizing and insulting comments about home (2012-09-12, 1.0 star); (4) Delayed estimate and job abandonment (2013-07-02, 1.0 star). These represent legitimate service failures and were weighted appropriately in scoring.
• One review (2013-07-22, 3.0 stars) noted failure to deliver promised written estimate, contributing to project completion concerns.
• One review (2013-12-12, 5.0 stars) mentioned hot/cold hoses were switched during installation, though customer resolved it and indicated willingness to use company again.
• Recency note: Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2013–2021, with fewer recent reviews from 2022–2025. Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are uniformly positive, suggesting current service quality remains strong.
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected. Reviews show specific details, varied language, and realistic mix of minor issues alongside praise, indicating authentic customer feedback.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable, based on 122 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions (52–78 mentions per dimension). The score reflects genuine customer experiences with both strengths and documented weaknesses, and is supported by consistent positive feedback over a 17-year period, though recent reviews are somewhat limited in volume.

John Neill Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength with 38 mentions emphasizing punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and communication. Project completion is consistently reliable with 32 mentions of timely work and follow-through, though two negative reviews (1-star and 3-star) indicate occasional lapses in callback responsiveness and pricing transparency. Experience and technical knowledge are well-documented across 24 mentions, with reviewers praising problem-solving ability and knowledge of older Philadelphia homes. Pricing receives a moderate score of 82 based on 18 mentions—most reviews praise fair pricing, but one reviewer felt overcharged for a simple service without upfront disclosure.

• Three reviews contain no text (5-star ratings only on 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, and 2021-06-10), limiting ability to verify claims. These appear to be placeholder or incomplete submissions rather than fake reviews.
• One 2-star review from 2022-06-10 contains no text, making it impossible to determine the cause of dissatisfaction.
• Two negative reviews (1-star from 2022-06-10 and 3-star from 2024-06-09) stand in stark contrast to overwhelmingly positive feedback. The 1-star review alleges unresponsiveness after multiple calls; the 3-star review cites lack of upfront pricing disclosure for a service charge. These suggest occasional but real service gaps.
• One 1-star review from 2017-01-18 describes failure to return calls after a gas leak issue, indicating a serious callback failure in the past.
• Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2021 or earlier, with a concentration around 2021-2022. More recent reviews (2024-2025) are limited but positive, suggesting possible improvement or selection bias in recent feedback.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 57 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (18-38 mentions each), resulting in HIGH overall confidence. The score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and project completion, tempered by documented instances of callback failures and pricing transparency issues. The contractor's performance is consistently strong but not flawless.

Marty Gildea demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and technical expertise. The vast majority of reviews (15 of 16) are highly positive, praising responsiveness, quality workmanship, fair pricing, and reliable follow-through. One significant negative review from 2019 documents a failure to complete promised work on a heating distribution system, which materially impacts the project completion score. Most reviews are older than 5 years, but the 2022 review confirms sustained quality over time. The contractor excels at emergency response, cleanliness, and customer communication.

• One critical negative review (2019-03-11) documents incomplete work and broken promises on heating system repairs—customer had to hire another company. This is a material project completion failure that significantly impacts overall reliability assessment.
• Review dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews (most from 2013-2017). Only one review from the past 5 years (2022), limiting recency validation of current service quality.
• While 15 of 16 reviews are 5-star ratings, the language varies sufficiently and includes specific details (pipe sizes, emergency response times, pricing comparisons) that suggests authentic reviews rather than fake patterns.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 16 reviews with consistent evidence across all dimensions; however, the single documented project abandonment in 2019 and lack of recent reviews warrant caution—potential customers should verify current responsiveness and follow-through before committing to major projects.

Bob (Gruber & Sons) demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor. Pricing is fair and transparent, with customers appreciating reasonable rates and no hidden charges. Project completion is solid, though one review (2016) indicates difficulty with a specific task (old stems), suggesting occasional limitations. Technical expertise is evident in gas leak detection, heating system work, and complex plumbing diagnostics. The contractor's willingness to provide free follow-up support and phone consultation demonstrates exceptional customer care.

• Two reviews (2015-06-11 and 2014-07-30) contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings—these provide no usable data and suggest possible data entry errors or placeholder entries.
• Review dated 2020-12-23 appears twice with nearly identical text (one with timestamp, one without), suggesting possible duplicate entry rather than fake review.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (6 of 8 usable reviews predate 2021), limiting recency assessment. Only 2 reviews from 2021 or later.
• One negative/mixed review (2016-10-31, rating 3.0) indicates the contractor was unable to complete a task, which moderately impacts project completion confidence.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to consistent positive feedback across all four dimensions with adequate mention counts (5-7 per dimension). However, the age of most reviews (pre-2021) and presence of two unusable entries reduce the currency of this assessment; scores should be validated with more recent customer feedback if available.

Miller Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning over 15 years, with the vast majority of customers praising Mike and his team for responsiveness, professionalism, and technical expertise across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Pricing is generally described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, though a small number of negative reviews specifically cite overcharging and billing disputes, which temper the pricing score modestly. Project completion is strong overall, with many reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, cleanly, and with follow-through — however, one credible negative review describes unfinished paid work and a rude dismissal, and another details a warranty dispute, which meaningfully reduce the completion score. Experience scores highest in terms of consistency, with dozens of reviewers across many years independently describing Mike as knowledgeable, skilled, and a master of his craft. The handful of negative reviews (7 total, covering rudeness, overcharging, no-show estimates, parking complaints, and incomplete work) are credible and specific enough to prevent top-tier scores across all dimensions.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews share the date '2023-06-10', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', and similar June 10 dates across multiple years with no specific timestamps. This pattern is consistent with bulk review imports or date normalization artifacts from a third-party platform, not organic posting. These reviews should be treated with reduced individual weight, though their content is varied enough to suggest they are not entirely fabricated.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS MENTIONED: Reviews reference Mike, Greg, Jeff, Chad, Don, Brian, Pat, and Jimmy — suggesting this is a multi-person operation or a shared business name across different regions/franchises. Some negative reviews (e.g., the estimate no-show review referencing Greg, and the rude technician review referencing a young Hispanic man) may describe different employees than the Mike Miller praised in most reviews. This reduces score reliability as a unified entity.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — OVERCHARGING (2021): One detailed 1-star review describes a $670 bill for under 3 hours of work on simple jobs, with the customer calculating a fair charge of no more than $400. This is a specific, credible pricing complaint that meaningfully impacts the pricing score.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — INCOMPLETE WORK AND RUDE BEHAVIOR (2015): A 1-star review describes a toilet flange set crooked, unfinished paid work, and Mike telling the customer to 'stop wasting his time' and 'never call him again.' This is a serious project completion and professionalism flag.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — ESTIMATE NO-SHOW (2019): A detailed 1-star review describes weeks of waiting for an estimate that never arrived, and an unhelpful staff response. This reflects a systemic communication failure and impacts professionalism scoring.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — WARRANTY DISPUTE (2014): A 1-star review describes Miller Plumbing denying they offered warranty service after charging $125 for a call on a unit they installed. This is a credible project completion and trust concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly detailed, positive reviews are from 2021–2025 and carry the most weight. Reviews from 2006–2014 are older than 10 years and are given reduced weight in scoring, though they are consistent in tone with recent reviews.
• THREE REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: Reviews with content 'unknown', '.', or blank were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with 110 total reviews, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with awareness that multiple technicians operate under the Miller Plumbing name, a cluster of same-date reviews suggests possible platform import artifacts, and a small but credible set of negative reviews raises legitimate concerns about pricing transparency, project follow-through, and occasional unprofessional conduct.

James Brown Plumbing Heating & AC demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism scores highest (87.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across 52 reviews. Experience is also strong (88.5) with 41 reviews highlighting skilled workmanship and technical knowledge. Project completion (82.0) is solid but shows some variability—most jobs are completed same-day or on schedule, though a few reviews mention scheduling communication gaps and incomplete follow-up on callbacks. Pricing (78.0) is the weakest dimension; while many reviews praise fair and reasonable rates, several customers note prices are not the lowest available, and one significant dispute occurred over a $10,000 price difference on a boiler replacement. The company excels at emergency response and customer care but shows occasional inconsistency in communication and billing practices.

• One blank review (no text) counted as 5-star on 2024-06-09 and another on 2020-06-10 and 2017-06-11 and 2018-06-11 — these appear to be placeholder entries and reduce data quality slightly.
• Two strongly negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) stand out sharply against the predominantly 5-star pattern. The 1-star review from 2012-03-13 describes poor workmanship, incomplete work, and aggressive collection behavior. The 2-star review from 2018-12-11 reports unresponsiveness to callbacks over 2.5 weeks. These are credible complaints that warrant attention despite being outliers.
• One 3-star review from 2015-01-13 describes excellent service and knowledge but reports the company became dismissive and unwilling to negotiate on a $20,000 boiler quote when the customer had a more competitive bid at $10,000. This suggests potential inflexibility on pricing for larger jobs.
• One 5-star review from 2016-11-21 is detailed and mixed: while praising work quality, it documents scheduling communication failures (late arrivals without notice, early morning calls changing afternoon appointments), billing pressure before invoices were actually overdue, and a request not honored regarding pipe opening placement. This suggests systemic communication and coordination issues despite quality work.
• Overall review distribution is heavily skewed toward 5-star (59 of 67 reviews). While this may reflect genuine customer satisfaction, the concentration is unusually high and the presence of credible negative reviews suggests some selection bias or review filtering may be occurring.
• Most reviews are from 2013-2025, with a cluster of very recent reviews (May 2025). Recency is generally positive for reliability assessment.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions based on 40+ mentions each. However, the score masks meaningful variability: the company demonstrates exceptional professionalism and technical skill but has documented issues with communication consistency, billing practices, and occasional incomplete work. The two negative reviews and one mixed review are credible and suggest the company's performance is not uniformly excellent. Customers should expect high-quality work and responsive service but should confirm scheduling details in writing and clarify pricing expectations upfront, particularly for larger jobs.