Find Nearby Plumbers In Johnson City, Tennessee

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, and communication, with hundreds of reviews citing courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is a major and recurring pain point: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or outright predatory, with specific complaints ranging from $400+ for a single drain snake to $1,600+ for incomplete work, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are completed successfully and often same-day, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Technician skill and experience scores well overall, but is undermined by a notable subset of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, and technicians who appeared uncertain or unqualified for the task at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the single most negatively reviewed dimension. Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations explicitly cite charges of $400–$1,600+ for basic drain cleaning or simple repairs as excessive, with multiple reviewers stating they found the same work done for 50–75% less elsewhere.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition. Several reviews describe technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, failing to reconnect appliances, or leaving hazardous conditions.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and poor dispatcher communication appears across multiple years and locations. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (e.g., $3,000–$10,000 excavations) that were later found unnecessary by other plumbers who resolved the issue quickly and cheaply.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-02 share very similar short-form praise structures (e.g., 'Justin was awesome', 'Great Job Mo!', 'Justin saved our lives today!') with minimal detail. Several appear to be from the same franchise location and may reflect solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the high-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older reviews (2013–2020) show similar patterns of both praise and complaints, suggesting these issues are long-standing and not improving significantly over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIANCE: Reviews appear to span many different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the US. Scores reflect aggregate performance across all locations, which may mask significant variation between individual franchises.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (600+ reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the aggregate score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because it aggregates performance across many distinct franchise locations, and individual location quality varies dramatically — some franchises consistently earn 5-star praise while others generate repeated complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work.

All Pro Plumbing has a large and highly polarized review base. The majority of reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Ifran, Eddie/Lalo, Brandon, Jerry, and others — for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and technical skill. However, a significant and recurring minority of negative reviews describe serious failures: no-shows without notification, ghosting after payment, incomplete work, overcharging (especially of elderly and vulnerable customers), and confrontational or dishonest office staff (particularly referencing 'Michelle' and 'Ifran' in separate negative contexts). Pricing is a mixed picture — many reviewers cite fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling gouged or misled on costs. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, and warranty promises that were never honored. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is frequently praised when work is actually completed, but is undermined by instances of misdiagnosis and substandard workmanship.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-09, 2025-05-18, and 2025-05-25 use nearly identical templated language ('arrived on time,' 'fixed the issue quickly,' 'very polite,' 'highly recommend') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique context. These appear to be generic, possibly fabricated 5-star reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Ifran came and did a thorough inspection...' (grey water leak, toilet) appears verbatim twice with dates 2024-09-19 and 2024-09-20. Similarly, the emergency kitchen sink leak review appears twice on 2024-09-10. These duplicates were counted once each.
• MULTIPLE CREDIBLE ACCOUNTS OF NO-SHOWS AND GHOSTING: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and the company did not call to reschedule or apologize. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege technicians kept cash payments without crediting the company, that promised refunds were never issued, that a warranty water heater check was cashed by the technician personally, and that discounts (first responder, veteran, senior) were promised but not applied. These are serious credibility and trust concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND WARRANTY FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, work that failed inspection, and warranty promises that were explicitly not honored when customers called back. This pattern significantly depresses the project completion score.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name 'Michelle' (described as an owner or manager) as dishonest, confrontational, or unresponsive. This suggests a systemic customer service issue at the administrative level, separate from individual technician quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2019 to present, with a strong concentration in 2024-2025. Older reviews (pre-2018) are sparse and have been given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued mixed patterns — both strong positive individual technician reviews and continued no-show and communication complaints.
• ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple different owners, managers, and operating locations (Bay Area CA, Camarillo CA, McHenry IL, Fresno CA, Reno NV, Texas, Florida, Indiana, and others). It is likely that 'All Pro Plumbing' is a name used by multiple unrelated businesses. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as submitted but users should be aware that this may not represent a single unified company.
• ROAD RAGE INCIDENTS: Two separate reviews (2024 and 2019) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by employees in marked company vehicles. While not directly related to plumbing quality, these reflect on company culture and employee conduct.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of fake or templated reviews inflating the positive signal, serious and credible recurring complaints about no-shows, financial misconduct, and incomplete work, and likely entity ambiguity across multiple unrelated businesses operating under the same name.

ABC Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) describing prompt, professional, and courteous technicians by name, suggesting a strong core team. Pricing is frequently praised as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting ABC came in significantly lower than competitors. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range — describe serious failures including abandoned jobs, no-shows, poor communication between office and field staff, billing disputes, work that failed shortly after completion, and in a few cases allegations of dishonest or predatory behavior. Project completion is the most consistently flagged concern in negative reviews, with multiple customers reporting work left unfinished or callbacks ignored. The score is moderated downward from what the volume of 5-star reviews might suggest, because the negative reviews contain specific, credible, and recurring patterns of failure that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or word-for-word duplicate reviews were found (e.g., the Jovi/quick/reasonable review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Tammy/Jason/external repairs review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Dana/Matthew/bathroom sink review appearing twice on 2025-02-06). This pattern is consistent with review manipulation or accidental double-posting and reduces confidence in the authenticity of some 5-star reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 2 reviews appear to be for unrelated businesses or contain no plumbing-related content (e.g., 'LIFT MARKETING Website Design Agency' rated 2 stars on 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02; a review about a fast food experience on 2018-12-15; a review referencing 'Pipe Wrench Plumbing' on 2006-08-15). These were excluded from scoring.
• REVIEWS WITH NO TEXT: Multiple reviews contained only a star rating and no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple 1-star reviews across different time periods describe abandoned work, no-shows, billing for incomplete service, poor office-to-field communication, and in one case an allegation of work that caused $15,000–$20,000 in foundation damage. These are specific and credible and were weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement in service quality, a more active review solicitation strategy, or both. Older reviews (2013–2021) show a more mixed picture. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily per Rule 6.
• MULTI-ENTITY RISK: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple ABC Plumbing locations or franchises across different states (Texas, California, New York, Kentucky, etc.). Scores may reflect the performance of more than one distinct business operating under the same name, which limits the reliability of the composite WW Score for any single location.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, irrelevant reviews mixed into the dataset, multi-location aggregation risk, and a recurring pattern of credible negative experiences that suggest the 5-star majority does not fully represent all customer outcomes.

Premier Plumbing draws a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, punctuality, and technical skill, which drives reasonably strong scores in professionalism and experience. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — document serious concerns including missed appointments with no communication, incorrect diagnoses charged at full price, abandoned work, and billing disputes, which significantly tempers all dimension scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different years describe charges they considered excessive, hidden fees, bait-and-switch quoting, and charges for work not performed, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left incomplete, recurring problems not resolved, and callbacks that were never honored. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in individual technician quality but persistent systemic issues in billing transparency, communication, and follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Three reviews dated 2016-05-03 and 2016-05-05 are nearly word-for-word identical regarding a boiler/Rinnai/Trane installation. These appear to be duplicate submissions of the same review and were counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under similar 'Premier Plumbing' names across different geographic markets (Texas, California, South Carolina, Iowa, etc.). This significantly reduces the reliability of the aggregate score as it may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range (2006–2025), indicating that communication failures, no-shows, and billing disputes are not isolated incidents but recurring patterns over many years.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A subset of 5-star reviews from 2021–2023 use generic praise with no specifics ('Great company,' 'Always good service,' 'Excellent service'). These add minimal evidentiary weight and were not used to inflate dimension scores.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews explicitly describe technicians removing fixtures or cutting into walls and then not returning to complete the job, which is a serious project completion red flag.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for work not performed, incorrect diagnoses billed as repairs, and prices significantly higher than competing quotes for identical work.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a reflection of any single contractor is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews span multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Premier Plumbing' name across different states, and that recurring negative patterns in billing, communication, and project completion are documented consistently across many years.

This aggregated review set covers multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names (Corados Services LLC, Cox Plumbing, and related entities), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews praise responsiveness, emergency availability, and technical skill — with many technicians (Osaro, Samuel, Jeff, Rod, Braden) receiving specific commendations for professionalism and problem-solving. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20 out of 163 — document serious failures including no-shows, abandoned jobs, hidden charges, dishonest billing, rude office staff, and incomplete work, which substantially drag down all four dimensions. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or competitive, but several reviews cite unexpected charges, overbilling, and lack of transparency. Project completion is the most polarizing dimension, with strong positives offset by multiple accounts of unfinished work, missed callbacks, and jobs requiring multiple return visits without resolution.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover at least two or three distinct businesses — Corados Services LLC (Samuel/Luz), Cox Plumbing (Osaro/Jeff/Rod/Braden/Dwayne), and possibly others. Aggregating these into a single score is inherently unreliable and may misrepresent any individual contractor's performance.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A cluster of reviews dated 2022-06-09 and 2022-06-10 and 2023-06-09 and 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 and 2024-06-10 share identical dates with no review text (rating only), which is a common pattern associated with review padding. At least 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2022-06-10 and 2021-06-08 are near-identical lengthy complaints about Jeff and billing disputes — this appears to be the same reviewer posting twice, which inflates negative signal for that specific issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2010 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Business quality and ownership may have changed substantially over this period. More recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but generally positive trend for Corados Services specifically.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years report no-shows, missed appointments, and abandoned jobs — this is a recurring and credible pattern that meaningfully reduces the project completion score.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: At least 3 separate reviews cite hidden charges, inconsistent pricing, or charges for work not performed — this is a credible recurring pattern that reduces the pricing score.
• BBB RATING CONCERN: One reviewer noted a BBB rating of F for one of the entities. This external signal was noted but not used to mechanically adjust scores.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to the aggregation of reviews across multiple distinct business entities, a large volume of content-free ratings that inflate review counts without providing scorable data, credible recurring patterns of no-shows and billing disputes, and a review date range spanning 15 years during which business quality and ownership likely changed substantially.

Aurora Plumbing Company has a long history of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Jason, Mike, Steven, Charlie, Lance, and others — for punctuality, professionalism, and technical competence. However, the review set contains a meaningful cluster of serious complaints covering no-shows, missed appointments without notification, price gouging, hidden fees, and in one case alleged theft, which significantly drag down the professionalism and pricing dimensions. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers across different years citing charges they felt were excessive or non-transparent, including a $500 charge for 30 minutes of work and $420 per hose bib. Project completion scores moderately well overall, but is undermined by the February 2025 no-show incident and a 2014 billing dispute where the heater failed shortly after service. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) show a mixed picture, with strong individual technician performance alongside a troubling pattern of scheduling failures that may reflect a change in ownership noted by one reviewer.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR COORDINATED REVIEWS: A large cluster of reviews dated 2024-10-12 and 2024-11-11 share nearly identical phrasing — 'came out today,' 'very professional,' 'very efficient,' 'cleaned up after themselves,' 'thank you Aurora Plumbing' — and almost all reference the same technician (Jason, often paired with Charlie). This pattern is highly consistent with coordinated or incentivized reviewing. Confidence in these specific reviews is reduced.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: One reviewer (Feb 2025) explicitly states the company was recently purchased and that service quality has declined. This may explain the sharp contrast between older glowing reviews and recent scheduling failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Several high-scoring reviews date from 2006–2015 and reflect a different operational era (likely under original owner Mike Weiss). These older reviews inflate the overall positive picture and should be weighted less heavily.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS SPAN MULTIPLE YEARS: Overcharging complaints appear in 2014, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2021, and 2024, suggesting a systemic and persistent pricing transparency issue rather than isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2020) alleged a technician removed new faucet components (stoppers) without permission and lied about it, and also violated Covid safety protocols. This is an unresolved allegation but materially relevant to trust.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least two reviews (Feb 2025 and Jul 2023) describe complete no-shows with no proactive communication from the company, indicating a recurring scheduling reliability problem.
• TWO REVIEWS MARKED 'unknown' WITH NO TEXT: These were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.

The WW Score of 72.1 should be treated with moderate caution: while the volume of reviews is high and overall confidence is technically HIGH, a significant subset of positive reviews shows strong indicators of coordination or inauthenticity, persistent pricing complaints span nearly a decade, and recent operational issues suggest a possible decline in service quality following a reported ownership change.