Find Nearby Plumbers In Rock Hill, South Carolina

TDR Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, communication, and politeness. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of timely work, thorough job execution, and follow-through on callbacks and explanations. Experience is evidenced by technical knowledge and methodical problem-solving approaches. Pricing data is limited to one detailed comparison showing competitive value against competitors, though most reviews do not address cost explicitly. The overall score reflects reliable performance across all dimensions, though the small sample size and age of most reviews (2014–2018) warrant moderate confidence.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — this uniformity is unusual and should be noted, though reviews contain specific details and varied language that suggest authenticity rather than fabrication.
• Review dates are significantly outdated: 5 of 6 reviews are from 2014–2018, with only one from 2015. No recent reviews (past 12 months) are available, limiting ability to assess current service quality.
• Pricing dimension is severely under-represented with only 2 mentions; score is conservative and should not be heavily weighted.
• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making high-confidence business decisions.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, complete absence of recent reviews, and uniformly positive ratings with no critical feedback. While the available evidence suggests competent and professional service, the lack of current data and diversity of opinion limits confidence in how well this score reflects present-day performance.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise this business — operating under the '1st Choice Plumbing' name across multiple markets and technicians including Eric, Linneer, Thomas, Scott, Coy, Jeff, and others — for strong professionalism, technical knowledge, and fair pricing. Recurring themes include punctuality, courteous communication, honest assessments, and willingness to honor warranties and return at no charge. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (approximately 18-20 reviews, roughly 9-10% of the total) describes serious failures: missed appointments with no callbacks, overcharging, misdiagnosis, failure to honor refund commitments, and rude or dismissive responses when confronted. These negative reviews span multiple years and multiple named technicians or operators, indicating these are not isolated incidents. The professionalism and project completion scores are moderated downward to reflect these documented failures, which are specific and credible rather than vague. Experience scores remain relatively strong given the volume and specificity of positive technical praise, but are not scored at the ceiling due to at least two reviews citing misdiagnosis or incorrect work.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference numerous different technicians (Eric, Linneer, Thomas, Scott, Coy, Jeff, Adam, Vito, Josh, Robby, Curtis, Jacob, Tim, Hunter, Moe, Chris, Brendan, Rick, David, Alan, Thomas Carter) and appear to span multiple geographic markets (Los Angeles/San Fernando Valley, Washington DC, Rock Hill SC, Colorado, Parker CO, Baltimore MD). This is almost certainly an aggregated review set covering more than one business operating under the '1st Choice Plumbing' name. Scores reflect the aggregate but users should verify which specific operator and market applies to their situation.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly '2023-06-10', '2024-06-09', '2022-06-10', and '2021-06-10' with no specific timestamps (all 00:00:00) are suspicious. Many of these are short, generic, and lack specific job details. While some are detailed and credible, the pattern of identical dates across many reviews suggests possible bulk submission or platform migration artifacts. Confidence is not fully reduced because many of these reviews do contain named technicians and specific job descriptions, but this pattern warrants caution.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text praising 'Mr. Laneer' for sump pump replacement appear to have been submitted twice (dated 2019-06-11 and 2019-03-27). This may indicate a copy-paste submission error rather than deliberate manipulation, but is flagged for transparency.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 8 distinct negative reviews cite complete failure to return calls or show up for scheduled appointments, spanning from 2012 through 2022. This is a recurring and credible pattern that meaningfully impacts the professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS DOCUMENTED: At least 4 negative reviews (Vito-related reviews, the R. Brown review, the Josh review, and the detailed slab leak review) cite specific overcharging, price inflation after agreement, or billing for time not worked. These are specific and credible and are factored into the pricing score.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain predominantly positive reviews with high specificity, which is a positive signal for current service quality. However, the negative reviews from 2024 (Vito overcharging, unresponsiveness) indicate issues persist in at least some service areas.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Several reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given strong evidence that the review set aggregates multiple distinct businesses or operators under the same name across different geographic markets, and a documented recurring pattern of responsiveness failures and pricing disputes that meaningfully offsets the otherwise strong positive signal.

Advanced Plumbing Services has a strong overall reputation built on decades of reviews, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — cite missed appointments, no-shows, defensive callbacks, disrespectful communication, and at least one instance of work failing within days, which meaningfully suppresses scores across all dimensions. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or reasonable by most reviewers, but at least two reviews explicitly flagged costs as high or outrageous, and one 2005 review cited a quote equivalent to over $500/hour for labor. Project completion is solid in the majority of cases but is dragged down by recurring complaints about cancelled appointments, unreturned calls, and at least one instance of a job not being followed through. Experience scores highest among the dimensions, with numerous reviewers citing skilled diagnosis, problem-solving on complex jobs, and quality workmanship that other plumbers could not match.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — HIGH: A cluster of 10+ reviews all dated 2020-06-10 with identical formatting, no specific details, different plumber names (Titus, Christian, Steve), and suspiciously generic one-line praise strongly suggests these are fabricated or imported from a different business listing. These reviews were included in mention counts conservatively but their scores were discounted.
• MULTI-BUSINESS CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct plumber names (John, Steve, Titus, Dwight, DJ, Gabriel, Jason, Sal, Miguel Velasco) and locations (Denton TX, Chino Hills CA, Roanoke TX, Little Elm TX). This strongly suggests reviews from multiple different businesses or franchises have been aggregated under one listing, which severely undermines score reliability.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text at all (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• PLACEHOLDER TEXT: Several reviews contain only 'unknown', 'NO', or a single period as review text. These were treated as no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 1997 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are more heavily weighted and show a generally positive but not flawless picture.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROJECT COMPLETION: At least 5 separate reviews across different years describe missed appointments, no-shows, cancelled bookings without notice, or jobs not followed through. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROFESSIONALISM: At least 3 reviews describe rude, defensive, or dismissive communication from staff or the owner, including one review citing a discriminatory comment toward a woman of color.
• 1997 REVIEW: One review dated 1997-06-10 with text 'NO' and a 5-star rating was excluded from all scoring as it contains no usable data and its authenticity cannot be assessed.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to strong evidence that reviews from multiple distinct businesses have been aggregated into a single profile, a suspicious cluster of likely fake reviews dated 2020-06-10, and a review history spanning nearly 30 years across geographically inconsistent locations — consumers should focus exclusively on verified recent reviews from 2023 onward when making a hiring decision.

Faith Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with most customers praising workmanship and responsiveness. However, pricing emerges as a consistent weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about high labor rates ($175/hr), inflated part markups, and hidden charges (travel fees). Professionalism is solid overall, though one critical review documents a major project failure with incomplete work and refusal to return for corrections. The company shows excellent customer service in emergency situations and follow-up, but pricing transparency and accountability on complex jobs are significant concerns that temper the otherwise positive reputation.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2016, 2004, and one undated) explicitly cite overpricing, high labor rates ($175/hr vs. industry standard $100/hr), and hidden charges. This is a material and recurring issue.
• MAJOR PROJECT FAILURE: One undated review documents incomplete cast iron replacement, failed auger work, leaking joints, basement flooding with sewage, and refusal to return for corrections. This is a severe quality and accountability failure.
• DATE INCONSISTENCY: 13 of 27 reviews lack dates, making recency assessment difficult. Dated reviews span 2004–2025, with a concentration of positive reviews having no dates (potential selection bias).
• CONFLICTING PRICING NARRATIVES: One detailed 2023 review praises 'extremely fair and reasonable' pricing, while multiple other reviews cite excessive charges. This suggests pricing may vary significantly by job type or customer.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several undated reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('Great service,' 'Very professional,' 'Will recommend') with minimal detail, which could indicate template-like or fabricated reviews.

This score is moderately reliable for assessing technical competence and responsiveness, but should be treated with caution regarding pricing claims and complex project execution. The lack of dates on 48% of reviews and conflicting accounts of pricing fairness introduce uncertainty. The one documented major project failure is serious and not offset by positive reviews, suggesting risk on large-scope jobs.

Coopers Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers praising responsiveness, communication, and courteous staff across many years of reviews. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple customers noting fair or below-expected costs and no hidden charges, though the sample is smaller. Project completion is solid overall but is meaningfully dragged down by one credible 1-star review describing unfinished work after upfront payment and a pattern of broken commitments, which cannot be ignored. Experience scores are generally positive, with reviewers citing knowledgeable and skilled work, but one 2-star review raises a legitimate concern about a misdiagnosis and a failure to follow through with a promised estimate, introducing a note of caution.

• One credible 1-star review (2016-12-20) explicitly describes incomplete work, broken scheduling promises, and a concern that upfront payment reduced prioritization — this is a meaningful negative signal for project completion.
• One credible 2-star review (2013-08-14) describes a misdiagnosis recommending unnecessary full pipe replacement and a failure to follow up with a promised estimate — this is a meaningful negative signal for experience.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 14 of 21) are older than 12 months from a 2024 analysis date, and most are from 2021 or earlier. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and late 2023). Recency of data is limited.
• One review (2016-01-19) contains only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and has been excluded from usable data as it provides no scorable information.
• Several positive reviews are generic in phrasing (e.g., 'highly recommend,' 'great service') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in the highest-end scores. However, enough reviews contain specific details to avoid a fake review flag.

The WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given 20 usable reviews with dimension-level data, but should be interpreted with caution due to the age of most reviews, two credible negative reviews that reveal real failure patterns, and only two reviews from the past 12 months to confirm current performance.

Elite Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 187 mentions. Pricing is competitive and fair (78.0) with 68 mentions highlighting reasonable costs and transparency. However, project completion shows the most concern (72.5) with 142 mentions revealing significant follow-through issues: multiple callbacks not honored, incomplete work requiring repeat visits, poor communication about scheduling, and several instances of abandoned jobs. Experience/skill is solid (80.0) across 95 mentions, with technicians generally demonstrating competence and problem-solving ability. The company's performance is inconsistent—excellent technical work undermined by administrative and follow-through failures.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (15+) document severe project completion failures including abandoned jobs, non-responsive callbacks, and incomplete work requiring other contractors to finish repairs. Examples: septic tank project abandoned 6 months in, water heater installation never completed, faucet replacement never followed up on.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recurring pattern of unresponsive office staff (Nicole mentioned multiple times), voicemail boxes full, no return calls, and email-only communication causing delays. At least 12 reviews cite inability to reach the company.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in service quality depending on technician assigned. Some technicians (Frank, Ryan, Salvador, Dale) consistently praised; others (Stewart, Brandon) associated with poor follow-through and unprofessional behavior.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 20 recent reviews (dated None/no date) show suspiciously identical phrasing patterns ('Salvador/Sal was professional,' 'responded immediately,' 'highly recommend') with generic praise and no specific details. These cluster at end of review list and lack dates. Confidence reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• CREDIT CARD FRAUD ALLEGATION: One review (2024-05-26) alleges unauthorized credit card processing without customer authorization—serious compliance concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent dated reviews (2025) are from Payless Plumbing/different company name. Older Elite Plumbing reviews (2003-2016) show more detailed narratives; recent undated reviews lack specificity, suggesting possible review manipulation or company rebranding.
• WARRANTY COMPANY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (8+) document conflicts with home warranty companies, suggesting either systemic billing/coverage issues or poor coordination with warranty processes.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by extensive mentions, the project completion score is significantly dragged down by documented failures in follow-through and communication. The recent cluster of undated, suspiciously similar positive reviews raises authenticity concerns. Prospective customers should prioritize requesting specific technician assignments (Frank, Ryan, Salvador, Dale show best track records) and establish clear written completion timelines with penalty clauses, as administrative follow-through appears to be the company's primary weakness despite solid technical capability.