Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, South Carolina

Johnson Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven by strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion. The company excels in experience and skill level (82.5), with numerous reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. Professionalism scores well at 78.5, reflecting punctuality and courteous service across most engagements. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0, with recurring complaints about overcharges, unexpected bills, diagnostic fees, and quotes that exceed initial estimates. Project completion is reliable at 79.0, though some customers report incomplete work or callbacks needed. The company's long operational history and family ownership are assets, but pricing transparency and consistency remain persistent pain points.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Complaints include: unexpected additional charges weeks/months after service, diagnostic fees ($100-$126 for simple assessments), quotes that increase significantly on-site, hourly rates perceived as excessive ($118-$220/hr), and lack of itemized billing. Multiple customers report being charged for incomplete work or work that required callbacks.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians (Ken, Rodney, Brad, Eric, Jason), others report incompetent work from unnamed technicians, suggesting quality varies significantly by individual. Some customers had to hire second plumbers to redo work.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2023-2024) describe delayed invoicing (bills arriving 4+ months after service), surprise charges, and threats of collection action. One customer reported being billed for a service they were not supposed to pay for (GE warranty case).
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews mention promised callbacks that never occurred, estimates that were never provided, and poor communication from dispatch/office staff.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: 1-star reviews (approximately 25 total) cluster around pricing disputes, incomplete work, rude staff behavior, and failure to honor commitments. A few reviews suggest the company takes advantage of elderly customers and veterans.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), which contrasts sharply with 2020-2023 reviews that contain more critical feedback. This shift may indicate recent operational improvements or potential review manipulation. Recommend treating very recent reviews with moderate caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (no text, 5-star rating) and several generic single-word reviews ('Great!', 'Awesome', 'fine') appear throughout the dataset, particularly in 2025 and 2020-2021 clusters. This pattern is consistent with review padding, though not conclusive.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable for understanding Johnson Plumbing's overall performance, supported by 287 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant variability: the company delivers strong technical work and responsiveness but has persistent, well-documented pricing issues that materially impact customer satisfaction. Prospective customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm pricing before work begins, and request itemized invoices to mitigate financial risk. The recent surge in 5-star reviews warrants cautious interpretation.

Top Notch Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual, friendly, and communicative technicians across 127 mentions. Project completion is solid at 79.5 with 89 mentions, though some callbacks and follow-through issues are noted. Technical experience scores well at 81.0 based on 68 mentions of skilled problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness at 68.0 from 42 mentions, with recurring complaints about high costs, lack of transparency, and insufficient price breakdowns. The company shows reliability but struggles with value perception.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 12) explicitly cite high pricing, lack of transparency, and overcharging. Several customers report being charged significantly more than competitors for identical work. This is the most consistent negative theme.
• CALLBACK/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: At least 8 reviews mention failure to return calls, no-shows, or poor follow-up after initial service. One customer reported 4 unanswered calls to management company.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews (at least 6) report that work was not properly completed on first visit, requiring callbacks or additional repairs by other plumbers. One customer reported technician created new problems during repair.
• DOCUMENTATION GAPS: Multiple reviews cite lack of itemized invoices, missing receipts for parts, and inability to provide details on fixtures installed.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from technicians or owner, including one report of being called names and another of technician hanging up on customer.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) show mixed quality. Recent 5-star reviews are predominantly generic with minimal detail, while recent 1-star reviews are highly specific and detailed, suggesting possible review authenticity variance.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Multiple identical or near-identical reviews appear in dataset (e.g., Benjamin Tate review appears twice; John Warzynski review appears twice), indicating possible data duplication rather than fake reviews.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable and based on substantial data (227 reviews with 127+ mentions per dimension), but should be interpreted with caution: the company excels in professionalism and responsiveness but has genuine, well-documented pricing and follow-through issues that significantly impact overall value. Customers should request detailed written estimates and pricing breakdowns before engaging services.

Edwards Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous technicians, and skilled workmanship across 42 and 26 mentions respectively. However, the company is significantly hampered by recurring project completion issues—including no-shows, missed callbacks, incomplete work requiring return visits, and warranty disputes—mentioned in 28 reviews. Pricing concerns appear in 18 reviews, with complaints about hidden charges, unexpected upsells, and bills exceeding quoted amounts. While many customers report fair pricing and free estimates, a notable subset experienced surprise fees and billing discrepancies that undermine trust. The company's performance is inconsistent: excellent service in recent 2025 reviews contrasts sharply with serious failures in follow-through and accountability documented across multiple years.

• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS AND MISSED APPOINTMENTS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2023, 2022, 2019) document instances where technicians failed to show up for scheduled appointments or did not return calls, suggesting systemic scheduling or reliability issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Several reviews describe work left incomplete (e.g., hot water not tested after cartridge replacement, faucet not tightened, tank not secured to toilet) and owner/manager refusal to honor callbacks or warranty obligations.
• HIDDEN CHARGES AND BILLING DISPUTES: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention unexpected charges, undisclosed trip fees, or bills significantly exceeding quoted amounts, with one customer reporting the owner became argumentative and hung up when challenged.
• WARRANTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: One detailed review describes a 1-year-3-month-old installation that failed; when customer requested repair, company refused based on expired 1-year warranty despite customer loyalty and second job performed.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews from 2022-2023 describe shoddy workmanship (faucet failing after 4 months despite professional install, reverse osmosis system failure after 4 months, loose connections causing repeated leaks), contrasting with recent 2025 reviews praising quality.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 8 reviews contain no text (empty review fields with 5-star ratings from Jan-Dec 2025 and Nov 2024), which may indicate fake or placeholder reviews. This reduces confidence in the overall positive skew of recent ratings.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with detailed praise, while older reviews (2019-2023) contain more substantive complaints. This temporal clustering of positive reviews warrants caution.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe unprofessional behavior by owner (Mike/Robert), including argumentative tone, refusal to honor commitments, and poor customer service responsiveness.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and expertise, it is significantly dragged down by documented failures in project completion and pricing transparency. The presence of empty 5-star reviews, the stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and older substantive complaints, and the pattern of no-shows and billing disputes suggest the company's reliability has been inconsistent over time. Customers should expect good technical work and friendly service but should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm all fees upfront, and be prepared for potential scheduling issues or callback delays. The company's recent performance (2025) appears improved, but historical patterns warrant skepticism about long-term consistency.

Rodgers Plumbing has a strong track record of professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising prompt arrival, courteous technicians, and helpful communication from office staff. Project completion scores well overall, with numerous reviews confirming jobs were finished thoroughly and callbacks were honored when issues arose — though a handful of notable failures (abandoned work, unresolved leaks, refusal to return) prevent a higher score. Experience is generally rated positively, with technicians like Robert, Keith, and Jimmy frequently cited for skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship. However, pricing is the most consistently flagged concern across the review set: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly called out charges as excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts, pulling the pricing dimension down significantly. The combination of strong service delivery but recurring pricing complaints produces a solid but not exceptional WW Score.

• PRICING CONCERN — RECURRING: Multiple reviews across different years (2006, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2023) explicitly cite overcharging, lack of price transparency, or final bills significantly exceeding expectations. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE SERVICE: One review (2022) describes a technician refusing to perform the requested work (water heater circulation pump replacement), and the office confirming this refusal. Another review (2016) describes technicians arriving and being unable to complete the job without prior warning to the customer.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: One review (2017) describes a leak returning immediately after the plumber left, with the company declining to return promptly. This is a direct project completion failure.
• UNETHICAL CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2015) alleges a technician offered to omit a charge from paperwork in exchange for cash payment — a serious integrity concern if accurate.
• CREDIT CARD SURCHARGE ALLEGATION: Multiple reviews mention being charged extra for credit card payments, with one reviewer noting this practice was illegal in Texas at the time.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Two reviews describe Rodgers Plumbing never responding to contact attempts (2014, 2010), and two reviews cite rude phone interactions (2025, 2017, 2021).
• BLANK/USELESS REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text — only a star rating (5 stars). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Three reviews consist only of repeated periods/dots and were also excluded.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review ('Great food', 5 stars, 2020) appears to be posted to the wrong business entirely and was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews (2025, 2023, 2022) relate to rude phone interactions and refusal of service, suggesting professionalism issues may be ongoing rather than historical.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The kitchen sink review ('I called due to a problem with my kitchen sink...') appears twice with different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-04-08) and identical text. This is likely a duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many reviews are positive, the majority contain specific names, job details, and situational context. The review set appears largely authentic despite the high proportion of 5-star ratings.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH overall confidence, though users should weight the recurring and multi-year pricing complaints heavily when making a hiring decision, and note that recent reviews suggest ongoing issues with phone-based customer service.

The majority of reviews praise James and his team for professionalism, punctuality, honesty, and fair pricing, with many customers expressing intent to return. However, three serious negative reviews significantly temper the scores: one describes job abandonment, no-shows, blocked communication, and alleged mistreatment of a terminally ill senior customer; another describes a severed drain line that was improperly repaired and then denied; and a third describes improper septic lid placement followed by unresponsiveness and surprise charges. These are not minor complaints — they allege incomplete work, financial harm, and poor follow-through, which directly impact the project completion and professionalism dimensions. The volume of positive reviews is high, but the severity and specificity of the negative reviews cannot be dismissed, and the presence of several generic, undated 5-star reviews with minimal detail raises mild concern about review authenticity.

• SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW (2025-05-10): A reviewer claims job abandonment, repeated no-shows, being blocked by the contractor, and plans to pursue small claims court. The reviewer identifies as a terminally ill disabled senior who paid thousands. This is a high-severity flag for project completion and professionalism.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW (2015-05-16): Reviewer claims drain line was severed and improperly reattached during prior work, company denied responsibility and charged for a follow-up service call. Cost the customer an additional $800+ to fix. High-severity flag for workmanship and accountability.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW (2013-10-21): Reviewer claims septic lid was improperly replaced causing a water-filled hole, company became unresponsive, and undisclosed service call fees were charged without warning. High-severity flag for transparency and follow-through.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews have no date attached. These cannot be assessed for recency and are treated with reduced weight in trend analysis.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent serious complaint is dated May 2025, making it highly relevant and current. Positive reviews also span 2024-2025, so the contractor has both recent praise and a very recent serious allegation.
• MILD FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several undated 5-star reviews use generic phrasing ('great work', 'highly recommend', 'will use again') with no specific job details, names, or context. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution. Confidence is not reduced to a lower tier given the overall volume, but users should be aware.
• MULTIPLE CONTRACTOR IDENTITIES: Reviews reference 'James', 'Jud', 'Jim', 'J.R.', 'Victor', 'Nick', 'Jayce', 'Joe', and 'Joel', suggesting either multiple employees or multiple businesses operating under the Advantage Plumbing name across different regions. Scores may reflect a composite of different individuals and locations rather than a single contractor.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by three specific, detailed negative reviews — including one from 2025 — alleging job abandonment, property damage, and financial harm, which represent patterns of risk that prospective customers should investigate directly before hiring.

Payless Plumbing has a strong base of positive feedback spanning many years, with customers frequently praising reasonable pricing, technical competence, and courteous staff. However, two detailed negative reviews — one from 2020 describing a multi-day no-show and dismissive office staff, and one from 2012 describing chronic lateness, double-booking, incomplete work, and pressure to pay before inspection — significantly weigh down the professionalism and project completion scores. The project completion dimension is the most penalized, as the 2012 review describes a job that took three days instead of four hours, required the customer to finish work themselves, and involved repeated scheduling failures. Pricing remains the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different years independently noting fair and reasonable costs without hidden charges. The most recent reviews (2024) are positive and describe completed remodels with passed inspections, which is an encouraging sign of improvement.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year, with most dating from 2007–2020. Only three reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting confidence in current performance.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW WEIGHT: Two low-rated reviews (2.0 stars) contain substantial, specific, and credible detail describing scheduling failures, no-shows, dismissive office communication, and incomplete work. These are treated as high-credibility negative signals.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Two 5-star reviews were posted on the same date (2024-05-21) within minutes of each other, both describing similar remodeling projects. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild suspicion of coordinated or prompted reviews.
• ONE REVIEW UNUSABLE: One review contained only the text 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews date back to 2007–2014 and may not reflect current business practices or personnel. These were included but given reduced implicit weight in narrative interpretation.

This WW Score is based on 21 usable reviews spanning 17 years and carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to mention volume, but consumers should note that the score is pulled down by two credible and detailed negative experiences, and that only three reviews post-date 2022, making it difficult to fully assess the contractor's current performance level.