Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbia, South Carolina

All four reviews are uniformly positive and explicitly praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and pricing fairness. Project completion is consistently mentioned with jobs finished on time and without issues. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident across multiple reviews. However, the small sample size (4 reviews), all 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, and review dates spanning 2016–2023 with three older than 2 years limit confidence. The consistency of praise is encouraging but insufficient to warrant HIGH confidence.

• Small sample size (n=4) limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or complaints — unusual pattern that warrants caution
• Three of four reviews are older than 2 years (2016, 2017, 2019); only one review from 2023
• Repetitive positive phrasing across reviews ('professional,' 'fast,' 'honest') could suggest curated or filtered reviews, though specifics vary enough to avoid full fake review classification
• No reviews mention any problems, delays, or areas for improvement — absence of balanced feedback is atypical

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and uniformly positive ratings with no critical feedback. The WW Score of 88.3 reflects strong performance on available evidence, but a larger and more recent review pool with mixed ratings would provide greater confidence in the true contractor quality.

Chris demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is evidenced by responsiveness and quick service (emergency call answered within an hour, fast problem-solving). Pricing is fair and transparent, with explicit praise for reasonable rates despite emergency timing and referrals that saved customers money. Project completion is solid with issues fully resolved and follow-through on recommendations. Technical skill is demonstrated through quick diagnostics and problem-solving. However, the sample size of only 3 reviews limits confidence; all are 5-star ratings from 2023 with no negative feedback to balance the assessment.

• Small sample size (n=3) — score reliability is limited and may not represent full customer experience
• All reviews are 5-star with no critical feedback — consider whether this reflects genuine universal satisfaction or potential selection bias
• All reviews are from 2023 (oldest is 12+ months old) — no recent data to assess current performance
• Generic praise language in Review 3 ('great job', 'above and beyond', 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail — typical of authentic but brief positive reviews, not necessarily suspicious

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directionally positive but not definitive; with only 3 reviews and all positive ratings, the score reflects strong performance on available evidence but lacks the volume and recency needed for high confidence. Additional recent reviews are needed to validate this assessment.

Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Long Beach earns strong marks for professionalism and project completion, with the large majority of reviewers praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians — particularly named techs like Brian, Christian, Andy, Gerardo, and Tom Myers. Project completion scores are high, with many reviews confirming jobs finished same-day or next-day, clean worksite practices, and follow-through on callbacks and warranties. Experience scores are solid, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics, thorough inspections, and skilled workmanship across complex jobs like re-pipes, main line replacements, and gas leak repairs. However, pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise affordability and fair quotes, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — cite opaque invoicing, verbal quotes not honored in writing, unexpected charges, and rates described as excessive. This pricing inconsistency is the primary drag on the overall WW Score.

• 51 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• A significant number of reviews (approximately 30+) are generic one-liners such as 'Great service!', 'Very pleased', 'Excellent', or 'Will use again' with no specific detail. These were counted only where they could be attributed to a dimension with reasonable confidence (e.g., general satisfaction implying completion), but were treated conservatively.
• Pricing dimension has a notable split: roughly 20+ reviews praise affordability and fair pricing, while 12+ reviews explicitly describe overcharging, hidden fees, deceptive invoicing, or rates far above market. This internal conflict suppresses the pricing score significantly.
• One review (2024-03-08) alleges a technician took advantage of a senior with dementia, upselling an unnecessary toilet replacement and a non-refundable warranty plan for over $800. This is a serious ethical flag.
• One review (2022-11-14) alleges the company accepted a warranty job without being enrolled with the warranty provider, wasting the customer's time and charging a show-up fee.
• One review (2021-02-21) alleges damage to an irrigation system, demanding payment before inspection, and only partially fixing a self-created leak.
• One review (2019-12-07) alleges invoice manipulation after learning the job was warranty-covered, incorrect pipe sizing billed, and failure to honor a 6-year warranty that was quietly changed to 3 years.
• One review (2016-12-22) alleges an unlicensed apprentice was sent unsupervised, which the reviewer states is illegal in Washington state. This review appears to be for a different Mr. Rooter franchise location (Tri-Cities/Pasco, WA) and may not reflect the Long Beach location.
• Several negative reviews appear to reference different Mr. Rooter franchise locations (e.g., Anderson SC, Tri-Cities WA, Pasco WA, Richland WA). These were included in aggregate scoring but noted as potentially belonging to different franchises, which may inflate the negative signal for the Long Beach location.
• Review recency is strong: the majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2023–2025, lending HIGH confidence to current performance. Older negative reviews (2013–2018) may reflect different ownership, staffing, or franchise locations.
• No clear fake review pattern detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and sentiment. The presence of multiple 1-star reviews with detailed complaints further supports authenticity of the review pool.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and predominantly recent review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing due to a meaningful minority of credible complaints about opaque billing and overcharging, and some negative reviews may originate from different Mr. Rooter franchise locations rather than the Long Beach operation specifically.

Aaron Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness — particularly from technician Austin. However, several serious negative reviews drag down the overall picture: one customer had a near-fire incident caused by a technician's torch work, another confirmed incomplete pipe clearing by a second plumber, and multiple reviewers cited being charged again for unresolved issues. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with complaints about $326/hour rates, a $500 charge for a failed cartridge replacement, and a $450 charge for incomplete sewer clearing — offset only partially by a handful of reviews praising reasonable or fair pricing. Project completion is mixed: most jobs appear to be finished, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describe incomplete work, return visits needed, and warranty disputes. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of praise for technical knowledge, but is tempered by documented incidents of poor workmanship and a technician who lacked basic tools.

• Two reviews are exact duplicates with identical text and the same date (2024-10-12): the 1-star 'DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY' review appears twice — this may be a platform artifact or intentional duplicate posting rather than a fake review, but it was counted only once per unique reviewer.
• Two additional reviews share identical text about a water heater failure (dates 2024-06-09 and 2024-04-22) and two more share identical text about Austin and a garbage disposal (dates 2024-06-09 and 2024-05-15) — these appear to be duplicate submissions and were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews with identical text about Steve and an emergency situation (2012-07-18) were counted as one.
• Several reviews from 2011–2014 are more than 10 years old and carry significantly reduced weight in scoring. The bulk of usable signal comes from 2022–2025 reviews.
• Five reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (rating 5.0, 2012-08-09) appears internally contradictory — it gives 5 stars while describing slow work and an overpriced quote — suggesting possible platform error or misclick; it was treated as a mixed/negative signal for relevant dimensions.
• The concentration of highly positive reviews for a single technician (Austin) across many reviews raises a mild pattern flag, though the specificity and variety of detail in most of these reviews suggests they are likely genuine rather than fabricated.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of several serious negative reviews describing safety incidents, incomplete work, and pricing disputes that are partially obscured by the high volume of positive reviews for routine backflow testing jobs.

Merritt Plumbing & Heating has a strong overall track record built on decades of repeat customers, with many reviewers praising professionalism, punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence across a wide range of plumbing and heating jobs. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with several reviewers explicitly calling out good value. However, scores are meaningfully tempered by a handful of serious negative reviews: one describing rude phone staff (Doug), one detailing a severely botched and abandoned bathroom job with billing disputes and unanswered callbacks, one citing a significant misdiagnosis, and one describing poor follow-through on estimates and communication. The project completion dimension carries the most weight and is pulled down by these credible, detailed negative accounts. The recency of most reviews (2024–2025) is a positive signal, though older negative reviews from 2011–2019 reveal recurring patterns around communication breakdowns and incomplete work.

• 18 reviews contain no text at all (blank or 'unknown') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the star rating average without providing usable qualitative data.
• Several blank 5-star reviews posted on the same dates (e.g., three on 2025-05-10, two on 2025-02-09, four on 2024-09-12) raise a mild concern about authenticity or review solicitation practices. Confidence is not severely reduced given the volume of genuine detailed reviews, but this pattern is noted.
• A credible 1-star review (2024-06-09) describes a multi-week wait for an estimate with no follow-through and no response to clarifying questions — a direct professionalism and project completion concern.
• A detailed 1-star review (2019-06-15) describes incomplete work, workers found in unauthorized areas of the home, billing disputes, unanswered callbacks, and work that had to be redone by a competitor — this is a serious flag even accounting for its age.
• A 2-star review (2013-02-04) describes a significant misdiagnosis that would have cost the customer ~$500 for unnecessary work — raises a concern about diagnostic thoroughness.
• A 3-star review (2011-01-12) describes poor workmanship on a sump pump installation and an estimate for a shower that was never followed up on — consistent with the pattern of communication and follow-through issues.
• A 1-star review (2015-12-05) states 'AWFUL, they just tore up the carpet and left' — though brief, this is a credible project abandonment complaint.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2024–2025, which is a positive signal. Negative reviews are spread across multiple years (2011, 2013, 2015, 2019, 2024, 2025), suggesting these are not isolated incidents but a recurring minority pattern.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, with strong recency weighting toward 2024–2025 reviews, and is considered moderately reliable — the high volume of positive reviews is credible, but recurring patterns of communication failures, incomplete work, and billing disputes across multiple years prevent a higher score and warrant caution for complex or high-value projects.

Potts Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers citing punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior across many years of reviews. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as finished on time and as agreed, though one notable negative review describes repeated no-shows and failure to follow through before eventually completing the work. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praise fair and competitive rates, two reviews explicitly criticize the pricing as too high, and one 1-star review is strongly negative about cost and responsiveness, pulling the pricing score down meaningfully. Experience and workmanship are generally praised, including handling of complex gas line jobs and quality repairs, supporting a solid but not exceptional experience score. The bulk of reviews are older than five years, which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews date from 2011–2019, with no reviews from the past 12 months and none from 2020 onward. Scores may not reflect current performance.
• THREE REVIEWS CONTAIN ONLY 'unknown' AS TEXT: These reviews (2016-02-18, 2014-04-22, 2013-07-29) provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• ONE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE REVIEW (2014-07-26, 1-star): Describes repeated no-shows over multiple weeks, poor communication with tenant, and a charge of $279.98 for a basic faucet replacement. This review was weighted in both professionalism and pricing scoring.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several short reviews ('Excellent work. I'm very pleased.', 'Always prompt and professional. Very reasonable.') lack specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points. However, enough detailed reviews exist to offset this concern at the aggregate level.
• SCOPE LIMITATION NOTE: One reviewer explicitly states the company is limited to small jobs and a small crew, which may be relevant context for prospective customers with larger projects.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with usable content spanning 2009–2019, providing HIGH confidence in the directional accuracy of the scores, but the complete absence of recent reviews means the score should be treated as a historical baseline rather than a current performance indicator.