Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, South Carolina

GS Plumbing shows strong performance across all dimensions based on limited review data. Professionalism is evidenced by rapid response time (10 minutes), friendly communication, and sympathetic handling of an emergency situation. Project completion is consistently mentioned across all reviews with jobs finished same-day and no reported issues. Pricing receives one explicit mention of a transparent upfront quote. Experience is demonstrated through problem diagnosis and successful water heater installation. However, the WW Score is constrained by the very small sample size (3 reviews) and recency concerns—one review is from 2016 and another from early 2023, limiting confidence in current performance.

• Only 3 total reviews analyzed—insufficient volume for high-confidence scoring
• One review is from 2016 (8+ years old) and one from early 2023 (1+ year old); only one review from 2024 provides current performance data
• First review is a 1-star complaint with no specific details about what went wrong, making it difficult to assess which dimensions were affected; appears to be a general dissatisfaction claim
• Positive reviews contain enthusiastic language but lack granular detail on pricing specifics and long-term follow-up, limiting ability to fully validate claims
• Sample size is too small to reliably detect patterns or fake reviews

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and significant recency gaps in the data; the score reflects only one recent data point and should not be considered reliable for decision-making without additional current reviews.

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. Two positive reviews praise punctuality, cleanliness, professionalism, quality of work, and fair pricing, while one strongly negative review describes a pattern of broken promises, unfinished work, and complete non-responsiveness. The negative review directly undermines project completion and professionalism scores, which are the two highest-weighted dimensions. Because the negative review is specific and credible — citing unanswered texts, canceled appointments, and abandoned work — it carries significant weight and cannot be dismissed. With only three reviews total, no dimension reaches high confidence, and the overall score must be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results are highly unreliable and should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• One review (1-star, 2021) describes abandoned work and complete non-responsiveness — a serious red flag for project completion and professionalism that significantly drags down the score.
• The two positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('fantastic', 'excellent', 'can't say enough good things') with limited specific detail about the actual work performed, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.
• Review dates span from 2020 to 2023. Only one review falls within the past 12 months relative to the most recent date (April 2023). The negative review is from 2021 and the other positive review from 2020, making recency assessment difficult with so few data points.
• No reviews mention specific project types, costs, or technical details, limiting the ability to assess experience and pricing with confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with directly conflicting accounts and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this score as a primary basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional references or more recent reviews.

Russell Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized customer experience. While many reviews praise the owner Steve and certain plumbers (Mat, Barkley) for quality workmanship, responsiveness, and fair pricing, a substantial number of reviews document serious professionalism failures—particularly rude, dismissive, and abusive behavior from office staff (specifically named as Renee). Project completion issues include incomplete work, failure to follow up on callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Pricing complaints are frequent, with customers reporting unexpected charges, double-billing for service calls, and estimates that don't match final invoices. The company's reliability is severely compromised by inconsistent service quality and poor communication.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of rude, unprofessional office staff behavior documented across 12+ reviews spanning 2011-2025. Multiple customers report being hung up on by receptionist (named Renee in several reviews). This is not isolated—it is a recurring operational problem.
• POLARIZED REVIEWS: Stark divide between 5-star reviews praising owner/certain plumbers and 1-star reviews citing poor service. This suggests inconsistent quality depending on which plumber is assigned.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, work that failed shortly after completion, and refusal to honor callbacks without additional charges. Examples include drain work that failed within a week, incomplete faucet repairs, and jobs left half-finished.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Numerous complaints about estimates not matching invoices, double service call charges, and unexpected price increases. At least 6 reviews explicitly cite overcharging or billing disputes.
• RECENCY: Negative reviews span from 2011 to 2025, indicating these are not historical issues—problems persist in recent months (Feb-May 2025).
• STAFF TURNOVER/INCONSISTENCY: Reviews mention multiple plumbers (Steve, Ray, Wayne, Mat, Barkley, Duke) with varying quality levels. Ray specifically cited as unprofessional and dishonest in parts procurement.

This WW Score of 58.3 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence, because the HIGH confidence reflects data volume, not consistency. The company is fundamentally unreliable due to systematic office staff failures and inconsistent workmanship. Customers should expect a 50/50 chance of either excellent service (if assigned to Mat/Barkley/Steve) or poor service with rude staff interactions. The pricing and project completion dimensions are particularly concerning, with documented patterns of incomplete work and billing disputes.

Plumbing in Pink presents a deeply divided review profile. A subset of customers — particularly those with simpler or single-visit jobs — report responsive service, pleasant technicians, and good value, with several praising Rusty and his team specifically. However, a significant number of negative reviews describe serious recurring issues: overcharging relative to market rates, incomplete or abandoned work requiring third-party contractors to finish, unprofessional behavior including drinking on the job and yelling at customers, and a no-show appointment with no communication. The project completion dimension is particularly damaged by multiple accounts of multi-week delays, unfinished work, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to correct errors. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with at least five independent reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging or rates far above local competitors.

• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review (Nov 2023) describes a botched toilet repair requiring three technician visits, a partial refund dispute, and unresolved follow-up — this is the most recent data point and carries the highest weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several positive reviews are from 2016–2019 (4+ years old) and may not reflect current service quality. The business appears to have declined in consistency over time based on review trajectory.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: One review (May 2021) alleges the company subcontracts to unlicensed workers, that drinking on the job occurred, and that the company lost BBB accreditation as a result of an investigation. This is an unverified but specific and serious claim.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2020 and 2021) describe projects running 3–4x over the promised timeline, with one requiring a second company to complete and repair damages — a strong project completion failure signal.
• PRICING PATTERN: At least five independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe being overcharged or receiving quotes significantly above local market rates. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: A small number of 5-star reviews (e.g., 2016, 2022) are brief, generic, and lack specific detail. While not conclusive, these reviews contribute less evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• SPLIT PROFILE WARNING: The review set is nearly evenly split between strong positives and strong negatives. This suggests inconsistent service quality — possibly dependent on which technician is assigned or the complexity of the job.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning 2016–2023 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the sharp positive-negative divide, credible allegations of serious misconduct, and a clear downward trend in service quality in more recent reviews.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Dipple Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While some customers report excellent professionalism and technical expertise (Craig Bishop, Mark, Joshua, Eric), many others describe unprofessional behavior, poor communication, and lack of accountability—most notably the dangerous hot water heater incident that created an electrical fire hazard. Pricing is the most critical weakness, with overwhelming evidence of excessive charges: $3,400 for a $1,500–$2,000 job, $587 for a $80–$240 flame sensor, $1,100 for a $175 control board, and $370 to disconnect a kitchen sink. Project completion issues include missed appointments, delayed callbacks, incomplete diagnostics, and failure to honor promised refunds. Technical quality varies widely, from competent installations to misdiagnosis and unnecessary upsells.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: Review dated 2024-04-18 describes a dangerous electrical fire caused by improper disconnection of a hot water heater. The technician (Billy West) failed to disconnect power, creating a fire hazard. Manager showed no accountability or apology. This is a serious liability and safety concern.
• SYSTEMATIC OVERPRICING: 15+ reviews explicitly cite excessive pricing. Examples include: $3,400 vs. $1,500–$2,000 market rate for water heater replacement; $587 vs. $80–$240 for flame sensor; $1,100 vs. $175 for control board; $370 for 15-minute sink disconnect; $1,000/hour labor rate for underground pipe work. Pattern suggests deliberate markup strategy.
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTION: Two reviews (dated 2024-02-04 at 15:55:21 and 15:45:02) are identical word-for-word, same rating (5.0), same names, same dates. This is a red flag for review manipulation. Confidence in positive reviews slightly reduced.
• POOR COMMUNICATION & ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews report missed appointments, no-shows, delayed callbacks, failure to honor promised refunds, and lack of follow-up. One customer had to dispute a credit card charge to recover promised refund.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Several reviews describe misdiagnosis (flame sensor when problem was clogged orifice; control board when problem was thermostat incompatibility) followed by pressure to upsell expensive parts or full system replacement.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly praised technicians (Craig, Mark, Joshua, Eric) and poorly performing ones (Billy West, Brian, Mason). Suggests inconsistent training or quality control.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2014–2020, but critical safety incident is from April 2024. Recent positive reviews (Feb 2024, Jan 2024, Nov 2023) may not reflect current operational issues.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score is based on substantial data (35 reviews with 18+ mentions per dimension), the company exhibits dangerous inconsistency: excellent service from some technicians paired with safety failures, overpricing, and poor accountability from others. The 2024 electrical fire incident is particularly concerning and suggests systemic quality control problems. Customers should request detailed written quotes, verify pricing with competitors, and demand clear accountability before engaging this company. The score reflects a company in operational crisis despite pockets of competent service.