Find Nearby Plumbers In Jackson, Tennessee

Hiller demonstrates strong professionalism with courteous, punctual technicians who communicate well and take pride in their work. Technical expertise is consistently praised, with skilled problem-solving and thorough inspections. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness—customers repeatedly report costs 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work, with aggressive upselling tactics and hidden fees undermining trust. Project completion is generally reliable, though some customers report incomplete work requiring callbacks. The company's motto 'Happy you'll be or the service is free' is frequently cited as misleading, as satisfaction guarantees are rarely honored.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging documented across 287 reviews. Customers consistently report quotes 35-50% higher than competitors; multiple instances of $500+ charges for 15-minute jobs.
• UPSELLING TACTICS: Pervasive pattern of recommending unnecessary replacements/upgrades. Technicians instructed to identify problems to justify sales; several reviews mention commission-based compensation driving recommendations.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Approximately 150+ reviews from June 2025 show identical phrasing ('professional,' 'thorough,' 'highly recommend'), generic praise with no specifics, all 5-star ratings, and minimal detail. Clustering by date (June 9, June 8, June 7, June 6, June 5) suggests potential review manipulation.
• GUARANTEE MISREPRESENTATION: 'Happy you'll be or service is free' slogan repeatedly invoked by customers but rarely honored. Multiple complaints about refusal to honor guarantee despite documented dissatisfaction.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: High variance in technician competence. Same company produces both exceptional service and incompetent work (e.g., botched welding, misdiagnosis, damage to property).
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Documented pattern of management failing to return calls or address complaints despite promises to do so.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Recent reviews (past 2 months) heavily skew positive with suspicious uniformity; older reviews (2010-2023) show more balanced criticism.

This WW Score of 72.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to suspected review manipulation in recent months. The HIGH confidence rating reflects large mention counts, but the clustering of identical 5-star reviews from June 2025 suggests artificial inflation. Stripping suspicious recent reviews and weighting pre-2024 data more heavily would likely lower the score to 65-68. Customers should prioritize negative reviews and pricing complaints as more reliable indicators than recent positive reviews.

McCoy's demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities based on two recent positive reviews highlighting punctuality, quick problem-solving, and customer satisfaction. However, a significantly older negative review from 2019 raises serious concerns about pricing practices, alleging overcharges totaling over $1,000 for parts. The pricing dimension is heavily weighted downward due to this explicit complaint of excessive charges. With only 3 reviews total and limited mentions per dimension, confidence in this score remains moderate and should be treated cautiously.

• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2019 (5+ years old); two recent reviews from 2024 and 2018. The 2019 negative review may not reflect current practices but cannot be dismissed.
• LIMITED DATA: Only 3 reviews total with 2 mentions per dimension limits statistical reliability.
• PRICING CONFLICT: Stark contradiction between positive reviews (praised for fair pricing) and 2019 review (alleged significant overcharging). This suggests either service quality/pricing has changed or customer expectations vary widely.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Insufficient volume to establish robust confidence in any dimension.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (3 reviews) and conflicting signals on pricing practices. The score reflects recent positive experiences but is substantially tempered by an older allegation of overcharging; additional recent reviews are needed to determine if pricing concerns have been resolved.

The reviews for this contractor are extremely sparse and dated, with all reviews falling between 2014 and 2016 — well outside the past 12 months. Professionalism received the most support, with mentions of after-hours availability and fast response, earning a moderate-confidence score. Project completion and experience were referenced only vaguely with phrases like 'did a good job' and 'quality work,' providing minimal substantive evidence. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so that dimension was excluded entirely from scoring. The WW Score should be treated with significant caution given the age, volume, and depth of the available data.

• All 5 reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no critical feedback whatsoever, which is a potential indicator of inflated or unrepresentative ratings.
• Multiple reviews share the same date (2015-02-14), which may suggest batch submission or artificial review activity.
• One review has unknown text and was excluded from scoring.
• All reviews are between 8 and 11 years old — none fall within the past 12 months. This data is highly stale and may not reflect current service quality.
• Most reviews are generic and lack specific detail (e.g., 'They did a good job'), making it difficult to score dimensions with confidence.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to a small number of reviews, all of which are over 8 years old, contain minimal detail, share suspicious rating patterns, and provide no data on pricing — treat this score as largely inconclusive.

This contractor's review set is deeply mixed, with a clear divide between older positive reviews (mostly 2011–2013) and more recent negative reviews (2019–2022). Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple accounts of no-shows, missed appointments, poor dispatcher communication, and a manager who dismissed a customer's legitimate complaint. Pricing is a major concern, with several reviewers explicitly calling out prices as excessive — $325 to snake a drain, $750 for a routine job — and one reviewer finding a competitor $200 cheaper for the same work. Project completion suffers from documented cases of abandoned or incomplete work, a technician arriving without supplies, and a sewer repair job that was done incorrectly and required a second contractor to fix. On the positive side, several older reviews praise individual technicians as knowledgeable, professional, and thorough, which keeps the experience score from falling further.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2013, making them 10+ years old. The most recent reviews (2019–2022) are predominantly negative (1-star). This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time and the older positive reviews should be weighted significantly less.
• GENERIC REVIEWS FLAGGED: Several reviews contain no usable detail — 'unknown' (x2), 'Awesome job guys.', 'They were excellent.', 'They are excellent.' — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no evidence for any specific dimension.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: The cluster of vague 5-star reviews from 2012–2013 with no specifics is suspicious. Phrases like 'They were excellent' with no context may inflate the historical positive signal.
• DISPATCHER/SCHEDULING SYSTEM FAILURE: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 3) describe a broken appointment and dispatch system where the call center and dispatcher are not coordinated, resulting in repeated no-shows and reschedules. This is a systemic operational issue, not an isolated incident.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE DOCUMENTED: At least one review describes a sewer repair that was done incorrectly (confirmed by a subsequent plumber), a trench left improperly filled causing ground sinkage, and a sink mechanism left dirty and non-functional after service.

This WW Score is based on 31 reviews with reasonable mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence mathematically, but the score's trustworthiness is tempered by the strong recency bias toward negative experiences and the presence of several vague, detail-free older positive reviews that may not reflect current service quality.

The reviews paint a mixed picture with serious concerns dragging down key dimensions. Professionalism suffers significantly due to the detailed third review, which describes chronic communication failures, a contractor who went silent for days at a time, and a job that blew past its promised deadline with no proactive updates — though the crew members themselves were noted as friendly and safety-conscious. Project completion is the most damaged dimension: the kitchen remodel was still unfinished well past the promised date, a prior project took five weeks with repeated delays, rubble was left in the yard for weeks, and a water connector was improperly installed causing damage — these are concrete, serious failures. Experience scores moderately because the actual finished work was described as good quality across multiple reviews, including tile layout, crown molding, and a roofing fix, but installation errors (misaligned brickwork, loose connector, cabinet mismeasurement) prevent a high score. Pricing had no mentions across any review and cannot be scored. The one very short negative review ('Did not go at all') suggests a no-show, which further weighs on professionalism and completion but lacks detail to score independently.

• All reviews are more than 10 years old (2009–2013). This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as representative of current quality.
• One review ('Did not go at all', 2-star) appears to describe a no-show but provides no further detail. It was factored into professionalism and completion scoring conservatively.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review. The pricing dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.
• The detailed 3-star review from 2009 is the most substantive review in the dataset and carries significant weight due to its specificity. It describes multiple systemic failures across communication, timeline, and workmanship errors.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, length, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to a small review set of only 4 reviews, all of which are over a decade old, making it unsuitable as a current performance indicator without more recent data.

The review pool is extremely small and largely outdated, with only 3 of 5 reviews containing usable substantive feedback. The most detailed and recent review (2019) is a strong negative, describing a $750 payment for a non-functional HVAC unit and an explicit failure to honor contracts or guarantees — a serious red flag across professionalism, project completion, and experience. A 2015 review noted work was completed but flagged that no permit was obtained, which is a compliance and professionalism concern. The sole positive review (2014) praised efficiency and same-day service but is over a decade old and carries minimal weight. The overall picture is one of significant risk, with the most credible recent evidence pointing to poor outcomes.

• Two reviews consist only of '...' and '.' with no substantive text — these were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• All substantive reviews are from 2014–2019; none are within the past 12 months. This score should not be considered reflective of current service quality.
• The 2019 review explicitly alleges failure to honor a contract and delivery of a non-functional product — a serious consumer protection concern.
• The 2015 review notes work was performed without obtaining a required permit, which may indicate regulatory non-compliance.
• With only 5 total reviews and 3 usable, the dataset is far too small to draw reliable conclusions. All scores carry LIMITED confidence.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to an extremely small and entirely outdated review set; the score should be treated as a preliminary warning signal only and not as a definitive assessment of this contractor's current quality.