Find Nearby Plumbers In Knoxville, Tennessee

Hard Knox Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, communication, and respectful treatment of customers and property. Project completion is solid, with most jobs finished on time and follow-up service honored when needed. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though one negative review disputes a $200 drain-cleaning charge, suggesting occasional pricing disputes. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in most reviews, though one job could not resolve a water heater issue due to equipment limitations rather than technician fault.

• 21 of 21 reviews are 5-star or near-5-star ratings with only 1 two-star review; this distribution is unusually positive and may indicate selection bias or fake reviews
• Multiple reviews lack dates (11 of 21), making recency assessment difficult; only 3 reviews have confirmed dates from 2023-2024
• One negative review (2-star) mentions a $200 drain-cleaning charge with complaint that drain was not properly snaked; this is the only substantive service complaint and suggests potential quality inconsistency
• Several reviews use generic praise language ('amazing service', 'excellent', 'wonderful') with minimal specific detail, though some reviews (particularly the detailed water pipe repair review) provide substantial specificity
• High concentration of 5-star reviews without corresponding negative feedback is atypical and should be interpreted with caution

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to the overwhelmingly positive review distribution (95% five-star) and lack of date information on half the reviews, which limits recency assessment and suggests possible selection bias; however, the detailed positive reviews and one substantive negative review provide some grounding in real feedback.

East Tennessee Plumbing Solutions demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with explicit mentions of punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and appearance (e.g., wearing footies to protect carpet). Project completion is reliable, with jobs finished on time and follow-through on callbacks and corrections. Pricing is fair and transparent, with multiple reviews confirming estimates matched final costs and no hidden charges. Technical expertise is evident in diagnostic accuracy, efficient problem-solving, and quality workmanship. The company's willingness to go above and beyond (refusing to gouge, offering price breaks for inconvenience) reinforces trust.

• One review contains only 'N/A' as text (2019-07-03) — excluded from analysis but counted in total
• Most reviews are 4+ years old (2019-2021); only 2 reviews from 2024 and 1 from 2023. Recent data is limited, which may not reflect current operations
• All reviews are 5-star or 4-4.5 star with no negative reviews — while consistent praise is positive, complete absence of critical feedback is atypical and should be noted

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable based on consistent evidence across 17 usable reviews with strong mention counts (8-13 per dimension), but should be interpreted with awareness that most reviews are 3+ years old and recent performance data is sparse.

Honey Do Service demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 87.2, driven primarily by consistently high marks in professionalism (89.5) and solid project completion (85.0). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and courteous service across 38 mentions, with staff members frequently praised by name (Cain, Brad, Kevin, Nelson, Jason, David). Experience scores (86.0) reflect skilled workmanship and problem-solving ability across diverse projects. Pricing feedback is more limited (6 mentions) but generally positive, though one customer noted estimates came in higher than expected. The company demonstrates strong follow-through and customer care, with the owner personally addressing issues when they arise.

• Two very old negative reviews (2018, 2021) with serious allegations (permit failure, damage denial, poor customer service) that contrast sharply with recent overwhelmingly positive reviews. These may reflect past management issues or represent legitimate concerns that have since been addressed.
• Extremely high concentration of 5-star ratings (44 of 50 reviews) with predominantly recent dates (2024-2025). While individual reviews contain specific details and named staff members (reducing fake review likelihood), the uniformity is notable.
• One 2025 review (backsplash project) initially rated 2 stars due to incomplete work, messy job site, and unfinished tasks, but was later edited to 4 stars after owner John provided follow-up service. This suggests the company does respond to complaints but also indicates initial quality control issues.
• Limited pricing data (6 mentions) makes the pricing dimension less reliable. One customer noted higher-than-expected estimate; another praised 'reasonable price' and 'surprisingly inexpensive.' Insufficient data for confident pricing assessment.
• One review mentions inconsistent work quality due to multiple technicians on same project (backsplash with visible seams between workers' sections).
• Recency bias: 42 of 50 reviews are from 2024-2025; only 8 reviews predate 2024. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive, while older reviews (2018-2021) contain serious complaints.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable for recent service quality (2024-2025 timeframe) with HIGH confidence, supported by 38+ mentions across professionalism and project completion. However, the score should be interpreted as reflecting current performance under current management; historical complaints from 2018-2021 suggest past issues that may or may not have been fully resolved. Pricing assessment is LIMITED and should not be heavily weighted. Prospective customers should expect professional, punctual service with strong communication, though occasional quality control issues (incomplete work, messy job sites) have occurred and may require follow-up.

CW Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism and experience being the most frequently praised attributes — technicians like Eric, David, Cleanord, and Theron are repeatedly cited by name for their courtesy, punctuality, and technical skill. Project completion scores are strong, with numerous reviews confirming jobs were finished promptly, often same-day or within hours of the call, including emergency situations. Pricing scores are tempered by one explicit complaint of $598 charged for roughly one hour of labor and minimal parts, and one older review suggesting the company was chosen for being cheap but delivered poor value — these two data points prevent a higher pricing score despite several reviews calling the company 'reasonably priced.' Professionalism is slightly penalized due to two negative reviews: one describing a plumber who refused to remove muddy shoes, arrived late, and was caught in a dishonesty, and one older review describing a technician who walked into a home without knocking and left messes behind.

• Three reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating (dates: 2024-08-13, 2024-06-09 x2). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review dated 2024-09-05 reads like a business advertisement ('Great prices 916 470-0451 / Free estimates / Licensed / All your plumbing needs') and appears to be a self-promotional or fake entry. It was excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews posted on 2024-11-11 are nearly identical in phrasing: 'The gentleman was polite professional and a hard worker! Couldn't ask for better service Will continue to recommend!' — one mentions a clogged main line, the other does not. This may indicate a duplicate or coordinated review. Treated with caution.
• A large cluster of reviews share the same date of 2024-06-09 (approximately 10 reviews). While not identical in content, the concentration on a single date is unusual and may suggest a solicited review campaign. Confidence is not reduced significantly given the specificity of most of those reviews, but this pattern is flagged.
• The review base spans from 2012 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 (approximately 7 reviews) were given reduced weight in scoring, as they may not reflect current business practices. The two most critical negative reviews are from 2023 and 2014 respectively.
• The 2014 negative review is over 10 years old and references staff members (Sandy, Johnny) who may no longer be with the company. It was included in professionalism scoring at reduced weight due to age.
• Overall, the review set skews heavily positive (5-star), which warrants some caution, but the majority of positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and situational context that lend credibility.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (55 total, 52 with usable data) spanning 2012–2025, with the majority from 2024–2025, giving the score reasonably HIGH reliability — though the heavy skew toward 5-star ratings, a cluster of same-date reviews, and a few suspected non-genuine entries introduce moderate caution, particularly for the pricing dimension which rests on limited explicit data points.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across 20 reviews. Project completion is solid overall (81.0), though one detailed 2018 review documented significant quality and planning issues including improper electrical connections, incomplete cleanup, and poor job planning that substantially lowered this dimension's score. Experience/workmanship averages 85.0 based on 8 mentions of quality work and technical skill. Pricing is fairly represented at 82.0 across 6 mentions, with customers noting fair and reasonable rates. The WW Score of 84.2 reflects a generally reliable contractor with strong interpersonal skills, though the serious deficiencies documented in the 2018 negative review prevent a higher overall rating.

• One detailed negative review from June 2018 documents multiple serious quality and safety issues: improper electrical connections (twisted wires taped together), incomplete work (hole in brick wall, missing pipe insulation), unsecured gas line, and poor job planning (4 trips for missing parts). This review significantly impacts project completion and experience scores and should be weighted heavily.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (majority from 2015-2018), with only 2 reviews from 2022 or later. Recency is limited, making current performance assessment difficult.
• Several reviews contain minimal detail ('Went very well', 'unknown', '.') which reduces confidence slightly, though the majority of reviews are substantive.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews show varied specific details and natural language variation despite predominantly positive ratings.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence for assessing historical performance, but recency is a concern—most reviews predate 2019, and only one review exists from the past 12 months, limiting visibility into current service quality.

Mr. Fix It Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review base spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and professional demeanor across hundreds of individual mentions. Project completion scores are strong, with numerous reviewers noting jobs finished same-day or next-day, callbacks honored, and warranty coordination handled proactively on behalf of customers. Experience scores are supported by detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics, complex jobs (boiler replacements, full bathroom remodels, burst pipes, warranty navigations), and honest assessments that saved customers money. Pricing is generally rated favorably — described as reasonable and fair — but is tempered by a handful of credible complaints about charges feeling excessive for short jobs, a cost overrun versus estimate, and one customer who felt scammed by a diagnosis fee that was not disclosed upfront. Professionalism is docked slightly due to a recurring pattern across 6–7 negative reviews citing no-shows, missed appointment windows, failure to follow up, and one instance of the owner allegedly denying his identity on a callback — these are serious reliability concerns that prevent a higher score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., the 'Mr Fix It is top notch' review appears twice on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the long 'I love Mr. Fixit' review appears twice on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03; the '110 year old house' review appears twice on 2020-02-06). These duplicates were counted once each for scoring purposes and flagged as potentially inflated.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (MODERATE): One 1-star reviewer explicitly states 'All these reviews seem fake to me and extremely similar.' While this alone is not conclusive, combined with the confirmed duplicate reviews and a high volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews ('Awesome!', 'Everything went fine.', 'It was very good. It was nice work.', 'Great!'), there is a moderate risk of review padding. Confidence is maintained at HIGH due to the large volume of detailed, specific, credible reviews, but this pattern warrants caution.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY COMPLAINTS: At least 5 distinct negative reviews (1-star) cite the contractor failing to show up for scheduled appointments, not calling to explain absences, or being unreachable after initial contact. One review describes the owner allegedly pretending not to be 'David' when called back about an unresolved leak. These are serious professionalism red flags that meaningfully reduce the professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple credible negative reviews cite unexpected charges, undisclosed diagnosis fees, and labor costs significantly above estimates. One reviewer paid $280 for 20 minutes of drain work and felt taken advantage of. Another reported labor at approximately $145/hour with no upfront disclosure. These are offset by many positive pricing mentions but cannot be ignored.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (pre-June 2024). The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive but include two confirmed duplicates. Older negative reviews (2014–2020) may reflect past behavior that has since improved, but the 2024 no-show complaint suggests some reliability issues persist.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating, dated 2025-05-07 and 2024-08-10). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SPANISH-LANGUAGE REVIEW: One review ('Puedo recomendarlo para todos los que necesitan teléfonos fijos') appears to reference 'landline phones' rather than plumbing, suggesting it may be a misplaced or erroneous review. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review dataset spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence overall, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a moderate fake-review risk signal, and a consistent minority pattern of serious no-show and pricing transparency complaints that are credible and specific.