Find Nearby Plumbers In Knoxville, Tennessee

Precision Plumbing Services earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — punctuality, courteous behavior, and post-job cleanup are mentioned repeatedly across reviews spanning nearly two decades. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers consistently noting timely, thorough work and follow-through. Experience scores well based on multiple mentions of competent, high-quality workmanship, including one notable instance where a technician correctly diagnosed a leak and saved a customer significant money. Pricing scores slightly lower because while most reviewers found the cost fair or reasonable, one reviewer noted the hourly rate felt slightly long and another acknowledged the company is 'not inexpensive,' suggesting pricing is competitive but not budget-level. The overall picture is of a reliable, professional contractor with a long track record of satisfied customers.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (14 out of 17) are older than 1 year, with 12 reviews dated prior to 2020 and several dating back to 2004–2011. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The WW Score is heavily influenced by older data and may not reflect current service quality.
• LOW DETAIL REVIEWS: Two reviews ('Went well' and 'I would give them a good recommendation. The cost depends on the job.') provide virtually no usable detail and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: 15 of 17 reviews are 5-star and 2 are 4-star with zero negative reviews. While this could reflect genuine quality, the complete absence of any critical feedback across 17 reviews spanning 20 years warrants mild caution. No fake review pattern was definitively detected, but the uniformity is notable.
• PLATFORM SOURCING UNKNOWN: Reviews appear to originate from multiple time periods and possibly multiple platforms. No single-platform concentration bias was detected, but source diversity could not be fully verified.

The WW Score of 82.1 carries HIGH confidence in terms of review volume and dimensional coverage, but should be interpreted with caution given that the overwhelming majority of reviews are more than one year old and the two most recent reviews (2024) alone cannot confirm whether current service quality matches the historical record.

Davis Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven primarily by excellent professionalism (84.5) and technical expertise (85.0). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship, with many customers praising individual technicians by name and expressing high satisfaction. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (72.0), with recurring complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and parts markups. Project completion scores (79.5) reflect mixed experiences—while most jobs are finished successfully, there are documented cases of incomplete work, no-shows, and follow-up issues. The company's responsiveness and quality craftsmanship are genuine strengths, but pricing transparency and consistency in follow-through remain areas of concern.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly criticize high costs, unexpected charges, and inflated parts pricing. Several customers report being charged significantly more than quoted or discovering hidden fees after work completion.
• FOLLOW-UP AND ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Documented cases of incomplete work, missed appointments, no-shows despite confirmations, and difficulty reaching the company for warranty/follow-up work. At least 12 reviews mention scheduling failures or communication breakdowns.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians, there is notable variation in professionalism and work quality depending on which crew is assigned. Some crews are described as hostile or dismissive.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 9, 2024 show near-identical phrasing, structure, and timing. Many are extremely generic praise with minimal specific details (e.g., 'Excellent service,' 'Great work,' 'Professional'). This cluster warrants skepticism regarding authenticity.
• SERIOUS QUALITY FAILURES: Multiple reviews document significant defects—wrong water heater size installed, shower installed without drain, sewer pipe installed incorrectly, water leaks caused by poor installation. At least 5 reviews describe costly damage or rework required.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE HOSTILITY: Several reviews report rude, dismissive, or aggressive behavior from owner/staff, including hanging up on customers, refusing to cooperate with warranty companies, and defensive responses to legitimate complaints.
• RECENCY BIAS: The bulk of 5-star reviews cluster in June 2024 and earlier 2024 dates, while serious negative reviews span 2013-2025, suggesting potential review manipulation or recent reputation management efforts.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in many cases, the prevalence of pricing complaints, documented service failures, and suspicious review clustering significantly undermines confidence in the overall rating. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes, verify pricing in advance, and be prepared for potential cost overruns. The company's inconsistent follow-through on warranty and callback commitments is a material concern.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior across most engagements. Technical skill and workmanship quality are notably high, with many customers praising attention to detail and problem-solving ability. However, project completion shows some inconsistency—while most jobs are finished on time and thoroughly, several reviews document incomplete work, callbacks required, or follow-through issues. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though some customers felt charged unexpectedly or at premium rates. The business shows a pattern of occasional communication lapses and responsiveness delays, particularly during high-demand periods.

• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2013-2014 and earlier. Only ~20 reviews are from 2024. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews show more balanced feedback. This temporal skew may not reflect current service quality.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews document significant failures (flooded hardwood floors from pressure washer, incomplete work, non-responsive follow-up, poor painting quality, damaged countertops) alongside numerous 5-star reviews. This suggests either inconsistent quality across different team members or variable performance depending on job complexity.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUES: At least 12 reviews explicitly mention difficulty reaching the contractor, delayed callbacks (10+ days), or non-response to voicemails. This is a recurring pattern across multiple years.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: Several reviews document jobs not finished as promised, callbacks required to complete work, or work abandoned mid-project (e.g., pressure washer equipment breakdown with no return visit).
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews mention unexpected charges, additional fees not disclosed upfront, or confusion about pricing structure (e.g., charging for drying time, extra hours beyond quoted estimate).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 5-7 reviews appear to be non-genuine (e.g., 'I didn't have any work done by this company' rated 5-star; 'Did not use this service' rated 5-star; 'The details are in the above box' with no details, rated 1-star). These reduce overall reliability.
• MULTIPLE CONTRACTOR NAMES: Reviews reference different individuals (Sylvester, Andrei, Alan, Pete, Steve, Henry, Carl, Reno, George, etc.), suggesting either a large team with variable quality or business name/ownership changes. This complicates assessment of consistency.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to significant recency bias (70% of reviews are 10+ years old) and a notable pattern of communication/responsiveness issues and incomplete work documented across multiple years. While technical skill and professionalism are generally strong, the contractor shows inconsistent follow-through and occasional service failures. Recent reviews (2024) are limited but positive; however, the historical pattern of communication lapses and quality inconsistencies suggests customers should verify current responsiveness and obtain detailed written agreements before engaging services.

Stephens Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and solid project completion across a large sample of reviews. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technical expertise, with many customers praising responsiveness and knowledgeable technicians. However, pricing emerges as a relative weakness, with several customers reporting unexpected charges, unclear quotes, and disputes over flat-rate versus hourly billing. A notable ownership change around 2021 appears to have negatively impacted service quality for some long-term customers. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting potential recovery or stabilization under current management.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews dated 2024-08-13 and 2024-07-24 about drain clog/Turbo Jet service with identical phrasing and structure. This suggests possible review manipulation or copy-paste error.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE IMPACT: A detailed 2021 review from a 20+ year customer explicitly states the company was sold to an outside buyer and service quality declined significantly post-acquisition. This represents a material business change that may affect score reliability.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2016-12-27, 2021-03-17, 2019-06-11) report discrepancies between quoted and final prices, with some customers citing surprise flat-rate charges not disclosed upfront. This pattern suggests systemic pricing communication issues.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text or only punctuation (dates 2023-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2015-10-06, 2014-12-18, 2012-03-02), reducing data quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: 45 of 92 reviews (49%) are from 2024-2025, while only 8 reviews (9%) are from 2020 or earlier. Recent reviews skew heavily positive (5-star), which may not reflect historical performance.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Several 1-star reviews cite serious issues (no-show appointments, rude staff, repeated failed repairs with charges, refusal to service customer), but these are minority cases (5 of 92 = 5.4%).

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to a large sample size (92 reviews) and consistent mention patterns across all four dimensions. However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that recent reviews (2024-2025) dominate the dataset and may not reflect the company's performance during the 2021-2023 transition period following ownership change. Pricing dimension confidence is MODERATE due to fewer mentions (22) and documented inconsistencies in quote-to-final-cost communication. The duplicate review and empty reviews slightly reduce data integrity but do not materially alter the overall assessment.

Danny's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 28 reviews. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by three significant failures (no-shows on rescheduled jobs, incomplete drain repairs requiring third-party intervention, and a major pump system failure with ongoing water loss). Pricing is a clear strength, with 13 reviews explicitly praising fair, reasonable, and competitive rates. Technical experience is well-documented across 15 reviews showing skilled problem-solving and quality workmanship. The WW Score of 81.2 reflects strong fundamentals undermined by reliability gaps in project execution.

• CRITICAL: Two severe project completion failures documented—Review dated 2024-03-13 reports two consecutive no-shows on scheduled jobs (customer waited 5 hours, called twice, contractor admitted he 'just forgot'). Review dated 2006-08-24 reports three service visits required to fix drain issues, with third visit incomplete and contractor reportedly rude; customer had to hire another plumber who fixed it immediately.
• MAJOR: Review dated 2021-05-30 reports $2,000+ pump system installation with catastrophic failure—customer lost water every other day for two weeks, multiple pipe fitting leaks, pressure gauge failure within two weeks. Company refused warranty coverage citing 'well water' exception and charged $200 per service call, leaving disabled customer on low income without resolution.
• MODERATE: Review dated 2021-03-25 suggests selective job acceptance—contractor showed disinterest in smaller remodel job, indicating possible cherry-picking of work.
• MODERATE: Review dated 2017-09-07 reports communication failure—customer called, left number, never received callback after three days despite positive reviews.
• MINOR: Four reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2016-02-04, 2015-12-08, 2015-11-23, 2015-07-07, 2014-06-23)—these provide no substantive data and suggest possible review manipulation or placeholder entries.
• MINOR: Two reviews dated 2006-08-15 contain identical text word-for-word, suggesting duplicate submission or review farming.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of reviews are 8+ years old (2006-2017). Only 8 reviews from past 12 months (2024-2025). Recent reviews show mixed quality with critical failures, while older reviews are predominantly 5-star with generic praise. This temporal pattern suggests either declining service quality or changing customer base.
• PATTERN: Three reviews (2024-03-05) dated identically with suspiciously similar positive phrasing ('showed up on time,' 'reasonable prices,' 'highly recommend') may indicate coordinated submissions, though content varies enough to avoid full fake review classification.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the volume of reviews (56) and consistency of professionalism mentions provide statistical strength, the three documented catastrophic failures in project completion—including a $2,000+ system failure, two consecutive no-shows, and incomplete drain repairs—represent material risks that a single WW Score cannot fully capture. The heavy weighting toward older reviews (2006-2017) and recent recency of critical failures (2021, 2024) suggest potential service quality decline. Recommend reviewing the specific failure cases before engaging this contractor for complex or high-value work.

SMK Plumbing and Electrical demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with timely arrivals, clear communication, and courteous technicians (Shaun and Justin named specifically). Project completion is exceptional—all four reviews confirm same-day or next-day resolution with no abandoned work. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned, with customers noting fair rates. Technical expertise is evident through quick diagnostics and effective problem-solving. The primary limitation is the small sample size (4 reviews) and sparse pricing mentions, which prevents higher overall confidence.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability—recommend collecting more reviews before making major business decisions
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; while not necessarily fake, the absence of any negative or mixed reviews is atypical and should be noted
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data to confidently assess value proposition
• Most recent review is from October 2024; older reviews (November 2023, March 2024, June 2024) are within 12 months but trending older

This WW Score of 89.3 should be treated as a preliminary indicator only. With only 4 reviews and unanimous 5-star ratings, the score reflects genuine positive feedback but lacks the volume and diversity needed for high confidence. Recommend collecting at least 10-15 additional reviews across a broader customer base before relying on this score for major decisions.