Find Nearby Plumbers In Knoxville, Tennessee

Joe's plumbing service demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on available reviews. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of responsiveness, communication, and courteous service. Pricing receives high marks for fairness, transparency, and refusal to inflate costs for emergency/off-hours work. Project completion is evidenced by completed installations and follow-through on quoted work. Experience is reflected in technical knowledge, efficient problem-solving, and inspector-validated quality workmanship. However, all scores are based on a limited review sample (5 total) with most reviews dating 3+ years old, which moderates overall confidence.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or negative mentions — this uniformity warrants caution, though reviews do contain specific details (Sunday emergency call, inspector validation, multiple projects) that suggest authenticity rather than generic praise
• Review sample is very small (n=5) — scores should be considered preliminary and updated as more recent reviews accumulate
• Most reviews are from 2020 (4 of 5 reviews), with only one from 2022 — recency is a concern; current service quality cannot be fully assessed from this data

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated as a preliminary indicator based on a small, older review sample; while the available feedback is consistently positive and contains specific details suggesting legitimacy, the limited volume and age of reviews (mostly 3+ years old) prevent high confidence in this score as a current representation of service quality.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and friendly attitudes across multiple technicians and owners (Aaron, Mike, Guillermo, Ron, and others), driving a strong but not perfect professionalism score. Pricing scores well overall — many reviewers explicitly cite reasonable, fair, or competitive pricing — but is tempered by several notable complaints: one reviewer was charged nearly $700 for a snake with no resolution, another documented being charged over double the market rate for HVAC maintenance, one experienced a mid-job price change from $285 to $388.50, and another felt labor charges for a warranty replacement were excessive. Project completion scores solidly given the large volume of reviews describing completed jobs, same-day or next-day service, and follow-through, but is reduced by a handful of reviews describing abandoned callbacks, a technician who left without hot water working, a dishwasher leveling issue that took two weeks to resolve, and a misdiagnosis case where a competitor fixed what A-1 could not. Experience scores high based on numerous explicit mentions of skill, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability, including complex jobs like CIPP lining, tankless water heater repair, and leak detection under homes.

• A significant number of reviews (approximately 40) contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot contribute usable data to any dimension and were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies or technicians (e.g., A-1 Total Service Plumbing with Guillermo/Esteban/Osvaldo/Leo vs. Complete Plumbing with Aaron/Mike Torculas). This review set appears to aggregate reviews from at least two or possibly three distinct businesses. Scores reflect the combined pool but reliability is reduced because performance may vary significantly between entities.
• Multiple reviews for 'Complete Plumbing' reference owner Mike Torculas and span back to 2011, while others reference Aaron Petrossian as owner of Complete Plumbing — these may be two separate businesses operating under the same name in different regions.
• Pricing dimension has meaningful negative signal: at least 4 reviews explicitly describe overcharging, hidden fees, or price changes mid-job, which significantly tempers the otherwise positive pricing sentiment.
• One review (2025-03-11, 1-star) explicitly warns readers to get a second opinion on A-1 Total Service Plumbing recommendations, citing a misdiagnosis and an unnecessary $2,400 repair quote when a $400 hydrojet and simple obstruction removal solved the problem.
• One review (2025-05-10, 2-star) describes being charged nearly $700 for a snake that did not resolve the issue, followed by a $7,000 camera quote and then no response when requesting camera footage — suggesting possible upselling and poor follow-through.
• One review (2024-11-11, 1-star) and one review (2018-07-28, 1-star) cite rude phone/office staff, and one review (2022-08-17, 1-star) describes the owner being rude and late to an estimate appointment — a recurring pattern of customer service issues at the front-end of the business.
• One review (2017-07-17, 1-star) describes a technician breaking faucet handles and then becoming unreachable for follow-up repair — a project completion failure.
• One review (2021-03-03, 1-star) describes incomplete work and a system left without hot water after the technician departed.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are mixed, with both strong positives and notable negatives appearing in the same period.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but its reliability as a single-entity score is meaningfully reduced by the apparent aggregation of reviews from at least two distinct businesses; prospective customers should verify which specific company and technician they are engaging before relying on this score.

Above and Beyond Plumbing has a strong overall track record built across a large volume of reviews spanning nearly two decades, with consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, courtesy, and quality workmanship. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting that quotes were honored even on difficult jobs, though one review flagged a significant and unexplained price discrepancy between the owner and a technician for identical work. Project completion is largely positive, with most jobs described as fully finished and followed through, but one notable 1-star review documents three missed appointments with no call, and a 3-star review describes a job left with a misaligned handle and a supply line leak. Experience scores well overall, with inspectors, repeat customers, and technically detailed reviewers all affirming skill and problem-solving ability, though the 3-star review raises a concern about workmanship quality on at least one occasion. Scores are moderated downward from their ceiling to reflect these documented failures and the age of the majority of the review base.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with a significant cluster from 2005–2012. Only 6 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). Current performance may differ substantially from historical record.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING FLAG: One review (2007-03-07, 1-star) documents the same job quoted at $125 by the owner and $275 by a technician, with an additional $59 service call fee demanded — a near-doubling of price for identical work. This is a meaningful pricing integrity concern.
• NO-SHOW FLAG: One review (2016-03-30, 1-star) documents three consecutive missed appointments with no proactive communication, only late-night texts after the fact. This directly impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: One review (2012-01-08, 3-star) describes a job that left a misaligned hot water handle and a leaking supply line that the customer ultimately fixed themselves rather than have the plumber return.
• UNKNOWN REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content. These were excluded from scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS: Reviews reference Jim, Kevin, Craig, Keoni, and Tim as service providers. Quality and pricing consistency across technicians cannot be fully verified and may vary.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, which supports authenticity. Some older all-caps reviews share stylistic similarity but appear to be platform formatting artifacts rather than fabrication.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of mention volume but should be treated with MODERATE trust overall due to the age of most reviews, documented no-show and incomplete work incidents, a pricing inconsistency flag, and the involvement of multiple technicians whose individual quality cannot be independently verified.

The majority of reviews — predominantly from 2024–2025 and referencing Keoni at Above and Beyond Plumbing — are strongly positive, praising professionalism, communication, technical skill, and thorough job completion. However, a cluster of older negative reviews (2022–2023, referencing Brogdon Plumbing) significantly tempers the overall score, citing no-shows, unresolved leaks after multiple visits, hidden charges, and a technician appearing intoxicated on the job. Pricing received a mixed score because while many recent reviewers praised fair and reasonable pricing, the Brogdon-era reviews included complaints about undisclosed fees and overcharging. Project completion was similarly dragged down by the Brogdon reviews, which described abandoned work, unresolved original issues, and failure to return calls. The WW Score reflects a business that appears to have improved substantially in recent years but carries meaningful historical baggage.

• ENTITY MISMATCH WARNING: Reviews appear to reference at least two distinct business entities — 'Above and Beyond Plumbing' (Keoni Cadman) and 'Brogdon Plumbing' — suggesting this may be a merged or incorrectly aggregated review set. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they blend two potentially unrelated contractors.
• RECENCY NOTE: All positive reviews referencing Keoni/Above and Beyond Plumbing are dated 2024–2025. All negative reviews reference Brogdon Plumbing and are dated 2015–2023. If these are separate businesses, the WW Score for Above and Beyond Plumbing alone would be substantially higher.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The 2024–2025 reviews show some repetitive phrasing patterns (e.g., multiple reviews using 'above and beyond,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend' with little specific detail). Three reviews contain no text at all (rating only). Confidence in the upper-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no written content (ratings of 5.0, 5.0, and 4.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENT: One 2023 review alleges the technician arrived visibly intoxicated and smelling of marijuana, attempted to overcharge for labor time, and had previously been unreachable for 10 days. This is a significant professional and safety concern.
• ABANDONED WORK: A 2022 review describes five service visits that failed to resolve the original leak, with the contractor subsequently becoming unreachable — a serious project completion failure.
• HIDDEN FEES: A 2022 Brogdon review explicitly describes undisclosed two-hour minimums and pricing that was 55% higher than competitor quotes for the same work.

This WW Score carries HIGH data volume but MODERATE reliability due to the likely mixing of two distinct business entities across different time periods, the presence of serious unresolved negative incidents in older reviews, and minor repetitive phrasing patterns in recent positive reviews that slightly elevate fake review risk.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for friendly, courteous service and rapid response times (30-90 minutes). Project completion is excellent, with all mentioned jobs resolved efficiently without unnecessary upselling. Technical expertise is evident in diagnostic capability and equipment adequacy. However, pricing raises concerns: one review explicitly notes a $550 charge after initially stating no charge was made, suggesting potential billing discrepancies or unclear communication about costs. The oldest reviews (2018-2020) limit recency assessment, and the first review is unusable due to confusion about company identity.

• PRICING CONCERN: Review from 2021-03-14 contains a significant discrepancy—customer initially praised 'generosity in not charging' but later received a $550 invoice, indicating either miscommunication about charges or billing surprise. This is a red flag for pricing transparency.
• RECENCY ISSUE: 4 of 5 reviews are from 2018-2021 (3-5+ years old). Only 1 review from 2023, limiting ability to assess current service quality.
• UNUSABLE REVIEW: First review (2023-11-29) is discounted entirely due to customer confusion about company identity and inability to provide meaningful assessment.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 usable review from past 2 years) and a significant pricing transparency concern that undermines confidence in the overall assessment despite strong professionalism and completion ratings from older reviews.

The WW Score of 87.2 is driven primarily by two highly positive recent reviews (2021, 2014) praising prompt diagnosis, clear communication, quick problem-solving, and effective resolution. However, a serious 2016 allegation of non-payment to a supplier significantly undermines trust and introduces material concern about business integrity. The score is conservative given the small sample size (3 reviews) and the presence of conflicting signals: strong technical execution and professionalism versus a credibility issue. All dimensions are based on LIMITED mention counts, reducing overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: One review (2016) alleges non-payment of $750 to a supplier in Nashville, TN. This is a serious integrity concern that contradicts the positive professionalism scores from other reviews.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two of three reviews are older than 5 years (2014, 2016). Only one review is recent (2021). Limited current data.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. All dimensions scored on LIMITED mention counts (1-2 mentions each). Score reliability is constrained.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: Positive reviews emphasize skill and communication; negative review raises business ethics concerns. These cannot both be ignored.

This score should be treated with caution. While the technical work appears solid, the alleged non-payment issue raises serious questions about trustworthiness that are not resolved by positive reviews of job quality. A larger, more recent sample is needed to establish reliable confidence in this contractor.