Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, South Carolina

S&K Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with consistent punctuality and friendly staff across multiple reviews, earning an 88 in this dimension. Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers report competitive, fair pricing while one explicitly criticized a $500 charge for incomplete work, resulting in a conservative 72.5 score. Project completion shows strength in most cases but is tempered by one significant failure where the initial job did not resolve the customer's problem, yielding a 78. Technical skill and workmanship are praised in detail (particularly technicians Cassidy and Nolan), supporting an 87 experience score. The overall WW Score of 84.2 reflects a generally reliable contractor with notable inconsistency in job outcomes.

• One 1-star review (2023-12-22) describes a failed job and potential overcharging ($500 for incomplete work), which significantly impacts project completion and pricing confidence. This is a legitimate negative data point, not a fake review.
• One review is from 2019 (over 5 years old), which reduces its relevance to current performance assessment.
• Mixed pricing feedback: two reviews praise competitive pricing, but one explicitly criticizes high charges for failed work. This volatility suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or variable job complexity.
• Project completion dimension is weakened by explicit mention of incomplete work in the 1-star review, preventing a higher score despite positive completion mentions in other reviews.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. With only 5 reviews and mixed signals on pricing and project completion, the WW Score of 84.2 reflects a contractor with generally strong professionalism and experience but concerning inconsistency in job outcomes and pricing transparency. The presence of one significant failure warrants careful consideration before hiring.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for courteous, knowledgeable technicians (Nick and Russ) who communicate clearly and offer options rather than hard-sell tactics. Project completion is solid with multiple reports of timely, quality work and problem resolution. Pricing receives mixed signals: several reviews praise fair and reasonable rates, but one customer found a simple toilet repair overpriced, suggesting potential inconsistency in value perception. Experience is well-documented through skilled diagnostics, technical problem-solving, and quality workmanship across diverse jobs (sewer work, water heaters, plumbing updates).

• Multiple reviews (5 of 9) share identical date of 2022-02-18, suggesting possible batch submission or data entry artifact; however, reviews contain distinct details and varied experiences, reducing concern about fabrication
• One extremely brief review ('Perfectly!') provides no substantive data and appears to be placeholder or incomplete
• Pricing dimension shows conflicting signals: 3 reviews explicitly praise fair/reasonable pricing, but 1 review criticizes high cost for simple repair; this suggests pricing may vary significantly by job type or customer perception
• Most reviews are 2+ years old (2022-2023); only 2 reviews from 2024 provide recent performance data

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from past 12 months) and a small overall sample size, though the consistency of positive feedback across multiple dimensions and specific technical details lends credibility to the assessment.

Sweet's demonstrates strong technical competence and project delivery, with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship, problem-solving ability, and timely completion. Professionalism is mixed: excellent communication and responsiveness are highlighted in several reviews, but one significant failure involving a missed estimate appointment and lack of follow-up substantially lowers this dimension. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, though one reviewer noted a minor upsell attempt. The company's willingness to explain work, provide warranties, and offer discounts adds to their credibility.

• One stark negative review (1-star, Dec 2023) describing a no-show estimate appointment with no follow-up communication. This is recent and directly contradicts the positive pattern in other reviews, suggesting inconsistent service delivery.
• Review from June 2023 contains some generic praise language ('highly recommend') but is supported by specific details (military/senior discount, 1-year guarantee, water pressure upgrade), so not flagged as fake.
• Most reviews are from 2022-2023; only one review is older than 2 years. Recency is reasonable.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the sample size is small (6 reviews), the data is recent and specific. However, the stark contradiction between the no-show incident and otherwise positive reviews suggests service quality may be inconsistent, and the overall score may not reliably predict future performance.

H2Flow demonstrates strong professionalism and responsiveness, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor. Pricing is generally viewed as reasonable and fair. However, project completion is a significant concern: while four reviews report successful work, one detailed 2021 review documents three separate failures on a single job (toilet repair not actually fixed, pressure reducer installed but water hammer unresolved, discharge hose installation created a code violation). Experience and workmanship are solid overall, though the 2021 incident reveals quality control issues. The company's willingness to return for callbacks (mentioned positively) partially mitigates completion concerns but does not eliminate them.

• One highly detailed negative review (2021-04-24) documents multiple failures on a single project, suggesting potential quality control or attention-to-detail issues that contrast sharply with uniformly positive other reviews.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (4 of 5 reviews from 2019-2022), with only one recent review from October 2023. Recent performance trend is unclear.
• The 2021 negative review is specific and credible with technical details (U2 error, water hammer, code violations), not generic complaint language, so it carries significant weight despite being older.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and pricing are well-supported by multiple reviews, the documented project completion failures in 2021 create material doubt about consistency. The lack of recent reviews (only 1 in past 2 years) makes it unclear whether quality issues have been resolved. A score of 82.3 reflects solid average performance but with meaningful risk of execution problems.

This plumbing company demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, politeness, communication, and thorough work. However, pricing feedback is mixed and concerning—while several customers report fair or excellent value, two reviews explicitly cite significant pricing discrepancies and overcharging, which substantially lowers the pricing dimension score. The company shows solid technical expertise and problem-solving ability. The WW Score of 79.8 reflects strong execution on service delivery offset by legitimate pricing transparency concerns that cannot be ignored.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Two reviews (2022-10-27 and 2018-06-26) allege pricing deception—one claims $170 for 2 minutes of work without communication, the other reports being quoted one price verbally but invoiced a significantly higher amount to the wife. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2020 or earlier (oldest from 2012). Only one recent positive review (2024-10-31) and one recent negative review (2022-10-27) exist. The 2022 negative pricing review is more recent than most positive reviews, suggesting potential service degradation or persistent pricing issues.
• LIMITED RECENT DATA: Only 2 reviews from the past 2 years; confidence in current service quality is limited by age of most testimonials.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and completion metrics are strong and well-supported, the pricing dimension is undermined by credible allegations of deceptive quoting practices, and most positive reviews predate 2021, limiting their relevance to current service standards.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for communication, politeness, and knowledge across multiple reviews. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion quality and pricing fairness. The 2022 review documents multiple completion failures (improper drain line installation, missing pan, incorrect temperature settings, debris left behind, property damage) and overcharging for 45 minutes of work, which substantially undermines confidence. Three older positive reviews (2020–2021) praise the work but lack detail on completion thoroughness. The stark contrast between the recent negative experience and older positive reviews suggests either inconsistent service quality or a change in operations.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three positive reviews are from 2020–2021 (3–4 years old); the most recent review from August 2022 is significantly negative, suggesting potential service quality decline or inconsistency.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAGS: The 2022 review documents multiple defects (improper PVC drain installation with droop, missing drain pan, incorrect temperature settings, debris left in crawl space, property damage to sprinkler head, light left on). These are not minor oversights but systematic completion failures.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews praise 'fantastic prices' and 'not recommending more than needed,' but the 2022 review explicitly states overcharging for minimal work (45 minutes, much of prep already done by customer). This contradiction warrants caution.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total; confidence in overall score is constrained by small dataset.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant recency gap between positive and negative feedback, and conflicting evidence on pricing and completion quality. The recent negative review documents serious defects that contradict earlier praise, suggesting either service inconsistency or deterioration. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish current reliability.