Find Nearby Plumbers In Knoxville, Tennessee

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with courteous communication and quick response times, supported by five explicit mentions across reviews. However, significant concerns emerge around pricing transparency and project completion. One customer was charged $250 for incomplete work that should have been a $65 service call, and another customer was abandoned after a weather-related reschedule with no follow-up contact for weeks. Technical skill appears solid when work is completed, but inconsistent follow-through and pricing disputes substantially undermine overall reliability.

• CRITICAL: Two severe project completion failures — one customer never heard back after rescheduling due to weather (1-star, March 2024), and another was overcharged $250 for incomplete/incorrect diagnosis (1-star, August 2023). These are not isolated complaints.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Customer reported being quoted $180 but charged $250 without authorization or explanation. This suggests potential billing practices issues.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most positive reviews are from mid-2023 (June-September). The two most recent reviews (January and March 2024) show mixed results — one excellent emergency response but one complete abandonment. Pattern suggests possible deterioration in service consistency.
• COMPANY NAME CHANGE: Reviews reference 'Two Amigos' and 'Three Amigos' — company appears to have rebranded to 'Prodigal Son's'. Verify this is the same entity.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (6 reviews) and conflicting evidence: strong professionalism and technical skill are undermined by serious project completion failures and pricing disputes that occurred within the past year. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects genuine strengths but masks material risks around follow-through and billing transparency.

Eidemiller Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical skill, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, responsiveness, and quality workmanship. Pricing is reported as fair and transparent across the reviews mentioning it. However, a critical 1-star review from 2015 documents a serious project completion failure—two missed appointments with poor communication—which significantly impacts the overall score. The majority of positive reviews are older than 2 years, limiting recency validation. The business shows capability but has a documented reliability issue that cannot be ignored.

• One severe negative review (2015) documents repeated no-shows and poor communication during project scheduling, directly contradicting claims of reliability in other reviews
• Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2018-2019), with only one review from 2024 and one from 2022; limited recent data to validate current performance
• All positive reviews are 5-star with generic praise language; while not necessarily fake, the lack of specificity in some reviews limits depth of analysis
• The 2015 failure review is substantially older but represents a critical service failure that should weigh on trust assessment

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent reviews and a documented project completion failure, despite strong professionalism ratings in older reviews; the 2024 review suggests improvement, but more recent data is needed to confirm current reliability.

Bio Plumbing scores well on professionalism, project completion, and experience across a large number of reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, cleanliness, and quality of work. However, the pricing dimension is meaningfully dragged down by one detailed and credible 2-star review alleging a deceptive upsell — a customer claims they were quoted $3,800 for work they completed themselves for $350, and that the technician failed to identify an existing clean-out. While most reviewers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, this single negative account is specific, plausible, and serious enough to warrant a conservative pricing score. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with generally strong performance but a notable red flag around sales and diagnostic honesty that prospective customers should investigate further.

• SERIOUS PRICING/ETHICS FLAG: One detailed 2-star review (Oct 2024) alleges a deceptive upsell — a $3,800 estimate was given without attempting a basic drain snake, and the technician reportedly failed to disclose or identify an existing clean-out. The customer resolved the issue themselves for $350. This is a specific, credible, and serious allegation that warrants caution.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Several reviews use very similar generic phrasing ('professional,' 'clean,' 'highly recommend,' 'friendly') with little specific detail. Two reviews posted on the same date (2024-04-27) with nearly identical structure and praise for the same team are suspicious. Confidence in the positive review pool is slightly reduced as a result.
• RECENCY NOTE: Two reviews are older than 3 years (2021 and 2019) and one is from 2023. The majority of reviews are from 2024, which is a positive signal for recency. The older reviews were given reduced weight in scoring.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 18 total reviews, the dataset is relatively small. Scores are directionally useful but should be interpreted with caution — a few more negative reviews could shift the WW Score significantly.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is limited, a credible ethics-related complaint meaningfully impacts the pricing dimension, and some positive reviews show patterns consistent with generic or potentially inauthentic feedback; prospective customers are strongly advised to seek an independent second opinion on any diagnostic recommendations or estimates from this contractor.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by a critical 1-star review citing significant lateness on both days and quality concerns, though three other reviews praise friendliness and politeness. Project completion is similarly mixed—while three reviews confirm work was finished, the 1-star review indicates the customer ultimately hired someone else after dissatisfaction. Pricing appears fair based on two mentions of good value and a free service offer. Experience is supported by three mentions of good workmanship and problem-solving. The stark contrast between the 1-star and three 5-star reviews raises concerns about consistency.

• Extreme rating polarization: one 1-star review vs. three 5-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either highly variable service quality or potential review authenticity concerns.
• The 1-star review is recent (June 2024) and detailed with specific complaints (lateness, quality issues, customer switched providers), making it credible and concerning.
• Three 5-star reviews use generic praise language ('cream of the crop,' 'friendly plumber,' 'do a good job') with limited specificity, though one provides detailed context about the free service offer.
• Recency: Most reviews are from 2024 (3 reviews) with one from late 2023, so data is current.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and extreme polarization between ratings; the recent 1-star review with specific complaints about punctuality and quality significantly undermines confidence in the contractor's consistency, and the MODERATE overall confidence reflects insufficient data volume to establish reliable patterns.

Choice One Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and individual plumber professionalism (Fred, Dominick, Brandon, Donovan, Steve, and others consistently praised), but is significantly hampered by systemic operational failures. While many customers report positive experiences with punctuality and quality workmanship, a substantial minority experienced no-shows, extended delays (37 days, 8 months), poor office communication, and unresolved billing disputes. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers found rates reasonable while others felt overcharged or misled about service scope. The company's greatest weakness is project completion reliability and follow-through on commitments, with multiple reports of abandoned work, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and failure to honor scheduling windows.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of no-shows and rescheduling failures (6-7 times in one case, multiple instances across reviews). This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Severe communication breakdown at office level. Multiple customers report unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and unresponsive staff (particularly noted in reviews from 2021-2022).
• CRITICAL: Billing disputes and refund issues. At least 3 reviews document charges for work not completed or services not rendered, with owner Robert ignoring follow-up calls.
• PATTERN: Owner Robert Rutherford receives both exceptional praise (well drilling emergency, sewer line work) and severe criticism (water heater disaster, long-delayed projects). Suggests inconsistent oversight and quality control.
• PATTERN: Individual technicians (Fred, Dominick, Brandon, Donovan, Steve, Charles) consistently receive 5-star praise for professionalism and skill, but office/scheduling failures undermine their work.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2021-2023 (billing disputes, 37-day delays, 8-month project, communication failures). More recent reviews (2024) show improvement but sample size is small (3 reviews).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW SIGNAL: One 2021 review is exceptionally long and detailed with repetitive praise structure ('Oh there's more...'), though content appears genuine given specificity. However, reviewer's claim that plumbers receive bonuses for 5-star reviews warrants scrutiny of review authenticity.
• INCONSISTENCY: Company appears to have undergone staffing changes (multiple mentions of 'guys calling in sick,' 'guys quitting'). This may explain operational volatility across review timeline.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While individual technician quality is consistently high (HIGH confidence), the company's operational reliability and project completion are severely compromised by documented systemic failures in scheduling, communication, and follow-through. The score reflects a company with strong technical talent but weak management execution. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should be prepared for potential delays, communication challenges, and billing disputes. Recent 2024 reviews suggest possible improvement, but historical pattern is concerning.

This contractor shows strong technical skill and generally completes projects well, with multiple reviews praising diagnostic ability and follow-through. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious communication failures (missed appointments, no-shows, hanging up on customers) and customer service rudeness documented in recent reviews. Most critically, pricing practices are highly problematic—two recent reviews document parts marked up 5–15x retail cost (capacitor $236 vs. $15–50 on Amazon; component $436 vs. $28), which severely damages trust despite claims of fair service fees. The company's strength in technical execution is substantially offset by these operational and pricing concerns.

• CRITICAL PRICING ISSUE: Two reviews (2024-09-17, 2023-05-15) document extreme parts markups (5–15x retail pricing). This is a major red flag for predatory pricing practices.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document poor communication—no-shows without notification, customer hung up on (2018-05-15), tech refusing to complete work without additional payment (2023-05-15). These are serious service failures.
• RECENCY PROBLEM: Most positive reviews are from 2013–2017 (7–11 years old). Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are significantly more negative, suggesting service quality has declined.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Reviews reference multiple technicians (Sgt Paul, Chad, John, Freddy) with highly variable experiences, suggesting inconsistent quality control.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several older reviews (2017–2013) use nearly identical generic praise ('family owned,' 'treat you like family,' 'great service great prices') with minimal specific detail. However, recent reviews are detailed and credible, so overall fake review risk is LIMITED.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While technical competence appears genuine (HIGH confidence based on 5+ mentions), the WW Score is significantly dragged down by documented pricing abuse and communication failures in recent reviews. The heavy weighting toward older positive reviews (2013–2017) masks a concerning trend of deteriorating service quality. Potential customers should be aware of the extreme parts markup issue before engaging this contractor.