Find Nearby Plumbers In Knoxville, Tennessee

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise based on multiple reviews praising punctuality, cleanliness, communication, and problem-solving ability. However, a critical 1-star review from 2021 describing incomplete work, leaking fixtures, and incorrect installations significantly impacts the overall score. While most recent reviews (2023-2024) are highly positive, the project completion dimension is undermined by explicit evidence of abandoned work and quality failures that required third-party remediation. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, but the severe completion failure creates substantial reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2021-05-07) reports incomplete job, leaking toilets, unhooked plumbing, and incorrect electrical work requiring other contractors to fix. This is a major red flag for project completion reliability.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Six of seven positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('excellent,' 'professional,' 'clean,' 'reliable,' 'recommend') with minimal specific detail, suggesting possible review inflation or template-based responses. However, the 2024 review and 2022 review provide more specific project details.
• RECENCY ISSUE: The most damaging review is from 2021 (3+ years old), but recent positive reviews (2023-2024) do not address whether completion issues have been resolved.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews emphasize reliability and follow-through, yet the 1-star review explicitly contradicts this with abandonment and rework requirements.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are uniformly positive, the documented project completion failure from 2021 combined with suspiciously generic phrasing in most positive reviews creates moderate uncertainty about true reliability; recommend requesting references and verifying completion practices before hiring.

Mountain Valley Plumbing has a generally positive track record across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with many reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence. However, two significant negative reviews — one detailing overcharging, incomplete work, and a return-visit fee for a job already paid for, and another describing padding of bills, poor workmanship, and unprofessional conduct — meaningfully drag down scores in pricing and project completion. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers found rates competitive or outstanding, multiple reviewers explicitly noted the contractor was 'a little pricey' or described hidden or inflated charges. Project completion is also mixed, with at least one clear case of unfinished work and a disputed return-visit charge. Experience scores higher due to consistent praise for knowledgeability and problem-solving, though the 2016 negative review raises concerns about workmanship quality in isolated cases.

• Five reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single punctuation mark as text — these provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• Several older reviews (2011–2016) predate the most recent reviews by 7–12 years; business quality and ownership may have changed. Recency weighting applied — older reviews treated as lower weight.
• The 2016 negative review is extremely detailed and specific, describing systematic billing fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional behavior. This is a high-credibility negative signal despite its age.
• The 2023 negative review corroborates the billing concern pattern: overcharging beyond quoted price, incomplete work, and charging again for warranty callbacks — suggesting this may be a recurring issue rather than an isolated incident.
• Some 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'yes. i do recommend. fast n efficient', 'The service was good.', 'Tt went very well, he is terrific.') with no specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in the positive signal cluster.
• One review (2023-09-05) is entirely about a roadside medical emergency and contains zero plumbing-related content — it was excluded from all dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, but the presence of two detailed and credible negative reviews describing billing irregularities and incomplete work, combined with a large number of content-free reviews and a wide date range spanning over a decade, means consumers should weigh the negative reviews carefully rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.

This contractor shows genuine strengths in responsiveness and professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians. However, pricing is a notable concern — one reviewer received a quote exceeding $3,000 for a job they completed themselves in 15 minutes, dragging down the pricing dimension significantly despite some reviewers finding prices fair or competitive. Project completion is mixed: several jobs were resolved quickly and completely, but two reviews describe failed diagnoses or unresolved problems where the customer paid without receiving a fix. The experience dimension is similarly split, with a misdiagnosed water heater and an unresolved clog contrasting against successful plumbing, electrical, and HVAC work described by satisfied customers.

• Two reviews (2021 water heater misdiagnosis, 2024 clog not resolved) indicate potential technical competency issues that should weigh heavily despite positive reviews.
• Several positive reviews are older than 12 months (2021–2023); only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months, limiting recency confidence.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, rating, and tone, suggesting authentic submissions.
• The 2021 reviews are over 3 years old and may not reflect current service quality; recency weighting applied conservatively.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, but the presence of multiple negative reviews citing failed repairs and pricing concerns, combined with a significant portion of reviews being over 12 months old, means this score should be treated as a moderate-confidence estimate rather than a definitive quality rating.

All four reviews speak positively about Bob's professionalism, describing him as courteous, honest, friendly, and responsive — including same-day and next-morning arrivals. Pricing is explicitly called out as reasonable or inexpensive in three reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is consistently positive, with multiple reviews noting quick turnaround and repeat hiring, which is a strong signal of follow-through. Technical knowledge and skill are praised in three reviews, though specifics on workmanship quality are limited. Scores are held conservative due to the small review pool and the age of some reviews.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of the four reviews are older than 12 months (2021 and 2019), with the oldest being over 5 years old. Recency weighting reduces confidence in current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive sentiment. While no identical phrasing was detected, the absence of any critical feedback across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• Review from 2019 notes the reviewer intentionally delayed posting until work was complete — this is a minor positive signal for authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning over 5 years, making it a low-volume, limited-confidence assessment that should not be treated as a definitive measure of current contractor quality.

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, noting punctuality, courteous attitudes, clean job sites, and respectful behavior toward clients. Experience and technical knowledge are referenced across all three reviews, with mentions of expert HVAC, plumbing, and electrical work, as well as a guarantee on their work. Project completion is touched on in two reviews, with both indicating jobs were finished properly and the workspace left clean, suggesting solid follow-through. Pricing is only mentioned in one review, which describes it as very fair, but this single mention limits confidence in that dimension. Overall the picture is consistently positive, though the very small review pool means these scores should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as preliminary.
• Two of the three reviews are older than 12 months (2021 and 2022); only one review falls within the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting is limited.
• Reviews are generally positive with no critical feedback, which may reflect a small and potentially self-selected sample rather than a comprehensive picture of contractor performance.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied language, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over a year old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be treated as a definitive assessment of this contractor's current performance.

Blazer Construction/Electric & Plumbing receives consistently positive marks for professionalism across all five reviews, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out politeness, courtesy, and responsiveness. Project completion is generally well-regarded, with jobs described as timely and thorough, though one scheduling hiccup was noted. Experience scores are moderately supported, with reviewers praising technical knowledge in electrical and plumbing work. However, pricing is a significant concern: one reviewer received a quote of $2,732 for a water heater installation that a competitor completed for $1,100, and was also charged a $99 diagnostic fee — this single negative pricing data point heavily drags down the pricing dimension given the limited sample size.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Review dates span from 2019 to 2024; three of the five reviews are older than 12 months, and two are more than 3 years old. Recency weighting is a concern.
• The 1-star pricing complaint (2019) is the only negative review and involves a specific, verifiable price discrepancy of more than 2.5x a competitor's quote — this is a meaningful red flag for pricing transparency.
• The $99 diagnostic fee charged by Blazer without apparent upfront disclosure is a potential hidden-charge concern.
• Four of five reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language; while not conclusively fake, the small sample and generic praise in some reviews (e.g., 'awesome resource') warrant caution. No clear fake review pattern detected, but insufficient volume to rule out selection bias.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 5 years and should be considered low-reliability — a minimum of 15–20 recent reviews would be needed to produce a score that can be trusted with confidence.