Find Nearby Plumbers In Memphis, Tennessee

Richard's Heating and Air shows generally positive performance across all four dimensions based on a small set of reviews. Professionalism received a moderate score due to a notable complaint in one review about poor initial responsiveness, a forgotten callback, and an off-putting demeanor from JR, though follow-up communication and installer conduct were praised. Project completion scores well, with all three reviewers confirming jobs were finished satisfactorily, including a no-charge warranty callback on a Saturday. Experience is supported by technicians correctly diagnosing issues, completing difficult installs others declined, and delivering lasting results. Pricing is only mentioned in one review, where Richards beat a competitor's quote, earning a positive but low-confidence score.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for reliability and should be treated with caution.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2021 or earlier, and one is from 2019. All reviews are more than 2 years old as of 2024, meaning recency weighting is a concern and current performance cannot be confirmed.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and mixed sentiment, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 2 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

All three reviews are positive and indicate general satisfaction with Rowell Plumbing, with one reviewer noting a relationship spanning back to 2009. Professionalism is lightly supported by mentions of responsiveness ('when you call, he comes') and honest communication ('shoot you straight'). Project completion is implied across all three reviews through repeat usage and general satisfaction, though no specific job details are described. Pricing and detailed workmanship quality are entirely absent from the reviews, leaving two dimensions unscored. The score is intentionally conservative given the very small and outdated review set.

• All 3 reviews are over 10 years old (2010–2014). This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• Reviews are extremely brief and lack specific detail about the nature of work performed, making it difficult to assess true quality across dimensions.
• With only 3 reviews total, the dataset is at the minimum threshold for score calculation — results should be treated with caution.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — no score could be assigned for this dimension.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are more than a decade old and lack sufficient detail to confidently assess most scoring dimensions.

All Rite Plumbing Supply receives strong praise for staff knowledge and helpfulness across multiple reviews, with several customers highlighting the ability to identify obscure or vintage parts that big-box stores cannot supply. However, professionalism takes a meaningful hit from one reviewer who waited 15 minutes at the counter with six staff present and was never acknowledged, ultimately leaving without service. Pricing sentiment is generally positive, with reviewers noting fair prices and staff actively trying to minimize customer costs, though one reviewer was sold an incorrect $40 drill bit with no offer of return, which tempers the pricing score. Project completion could not be scored as this appears to be a plumbing supply store rather than a contracting service, and no reviews addressed job completion in a field-work context. The overall score is conservative given the small review pool and the presence of one clearly nonsensical review that was excluded from scoring.

• FAKE OR JOKE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2022-09-21 (5-star, Southaven location) contains fabricated, nonsensical claims including truck note payments, a wife returning, Spanish language comfort, and Cessna 172 flight lessons. This review was excluded from all dimension scoring as it contains no credible or usable data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 of the 7 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). Three reviews are from 2020 or earlier, and one is from 2017, and one from 2013. The business experience may have changed significantly since those older reviews were written.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: With only 7 total reviews (6 usable), all scores carry limited statistical reliability regardless of confidence labels assigned per dimension.
• PROJECT COMPLETION dimension could not be scored at all — this appears to be a plumbing supply retailer, not a contracting service, so no field work completion data exists in any review.
• MIXED SERVICE QUALITY SIGNAL: The 1-star counter service experience (ignored for 15+ minutes with 6 staff present) and the incorrect drill bit sale with no return offer suggest inconsistency in staff attentiveness and accountability, which meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive professionalism mentions.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review pool (6 usable reviews), significant recency gaps with most reviews being 3–11 years old, one confirmed nonsensical review excluded from scoring, and the complete absence of project completion data, which is the highest-weighted dimension in the WW scoring model.

Mr. Rooter of Memphis receives broadly positive marks for individual technician professionalism and technical knowledge, with many reviewers praising specific technicians by name for being courteous, punctual, communicative, and skilled. However, the pricing dimension is a serious drag on the overall score, with a large and consistent pattern of complaints spanning many years describing charges as exorbitant, non-transparent, or wildly disproportionate to the work performed — including multiple reviews alleging hidden charges, misquotes, and refusal to issue refunds. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are completed satisfactorily, a meaningful number of detailed negative reviews describe abandoned work, no-shows, failure to honor callbacks, unfinished excavation, and jobs that required multiple return visits to correct errors. The gap between individual technician quality and company-level reliability and pricing integrity is the defining tension in this review set.

• STRONG FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: A large cluster of reviews dated between 2025-03-08 and 2025-06-09 are highly suspicious. Multiple reviews are exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Excellent service, all around. The explanation of the work...' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the 'I am so pleased with the outstanding customer service...' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the 'Mr rooter both men were exceptional...' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the 'Scott is a delightful. Person...' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the 'Scott and Paul did an awesome job' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05). This is a clear indicator of review manipulation. These duplicate reviews were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• The 2025 cluster also contains a disproportionate number of extremely short, generic, all-5-star reviews with no substantive detail (e.g., 'Scott', 'Josh was great', 'Great work', 'Scott was more than 5 stars') alongside many blank-text 5-star reviews. This pattern is consistent with coordinated fake review activity and significantly inflates the raw star average.
• Multiple serious 1-star reviews describe systemic company-level failures: a $23,000 CIPP job with a 5-month unresolved driveway collapse and two no-shows (April 2025); a $6,700 water leak repair where the actual leak was never found; a $480 charge for no work performed with no manager callback; a customer charged $1,400 over the agreed quote with no resolution; a technician leaving a broken cable inside pipes; and repeated allegations of upselling, overcharging, and refusal to refund.
• A significant number of reviews are dated 2013–2017 and earlier, meaning they are more than 7 years old. While they provide historical context, they carry reduced weight under recency rules. The most recent substantive negative reviews (2025, 2024) suggest ongoing systemic issues with pricing transparency and project follow-through.
• Several blank-text reviews with only a 5-star rating and a date were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data, though they were counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Reviews marked 'unknown' (primarily from 2014–2016) were treated as having no usable dimension data and excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the confirmed presence of duplicate fake reviews inflating the positive signal, a persistent and well-documented pattern of pricing complaints and project completion failures across multiple years, and serious unresolved customer grievances described in recent detailed 1-star reviews.

AAA Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a deeply mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately — the majority of reviewers praise courteous, prompt, and friendly technicians by name (Rob, Jesse, Chad, Steve, Lee, Stan), but a meaningful minority of reviews describe serious failures including rude office staff, no-shows, missed callbacks, threatening customers with collections, and one incident of smoking on the job. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe being overcharged, receiving inconsistent quotes, or finding the same work done for a fraction of the price elsewhere — though a smaller number praise fair or upfront pricing. Project completion is also mixed — many jobs are described as completed thoroughly and on time, but there are credible, detailed accounts of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unfixed problem, work left incomplete after full payment ($27,000 job), and warranty disputes. Experience scores somewhat better, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe plumbers who did not know what they were doing or could not diagnose basic issues.

• 23 reviews contain no text (blank or single-character entries such as 'unknown', '.', 'l', 'well', 'great') and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute only to raw review count.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2023-06-10 and 2021-06-10 with no timestamps (only date) may indicate batch imports from a third-party platform rather than organic submissions — treat with moderate caution.
• Several highly positive reviews are generic and lack specifics (e.g., 'Great service', 'Very professional', 'Excellent experience overall') — these were counted for professionalism mentions but weighted conservatively.
• The review corpus spans from 2006 to 2025, meaning a large portion of reviews (pre-2023) are more than 12 months old. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show a notable deterioration in professionalism and project completion scores, suggesting the company's quality may have declined.
• The most recent high-detail negative review (Dec 2024, 1-star) describes an 8-year business relationship ending due to aggressive collections behavior, incompetent plumbers, and poor communication — this is given elevated weight due to recency and specificity.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, but the volume of generic 5-star reviews with no detail warrants conservative scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, 140 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the score's direction, but users should note that recent reviews trend more negatively and the score may overstate current service quality due to the weight of older positive reviews.

Brooks Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. A substantial base of loyal, long-term customers consistently praise timely service, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship — particularly from technicians like Paul, Terry, Carlos, Oliver, and Phillip. However, a significant and recurring pattern of negative reviews specifically targets the owner John for rude, combative, and condescending behavior when customers question billing, which substantially drags down the professionalism and pricing scores. Pricing complaints are among the most serious and specific, with multiple reviewers citing charges they allege were inflated by 2x–4x compared to competitors, and at least two reviewers describing disputed charges during the February 2021 Texas winter storm. Project completion scores are moderate-to-good among those who saw jobs through, but several reviews describe abandoned follow-through, missed appointments, and unresolved callbacks that prevent a higher score.

• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: At least 12 separate reviews across multiple years explicitly name the owner (John/John Basalone) as rude, combative, condescending, or prone to hanging up on customers — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Multiple detailed, specific reviews across 2016–2021 allege significant overcharging with itemized examples (e.g., $700 for 2ft copper pipe, $125 permit that city confirmed costs $52, $1800 quote vs $500 competitor price). This is too specific and recurring to dismiss.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2025-04-10', '2025-06-02', '2025-06-03', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', '2019-06-11', '2018-06-11', and '2023-06-10' contain no review text (rating only) or extremely generic praise with no specifics. These batch-dated blank or vague reviews inflate the star average and reduce confidence in the positive review pool.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive and suggest possible improvement in service quality or staff changes. However, a 1-star review from February 2025 still cites overcharging and an unfriendly technician, indicating the issues have not been fully resolved.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe being completely ignored after initial contact — no follow-up, no estimate delivered, no callback — suggesting systemic communication gaps.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2019 sewer pump review describes months of incomplete, repeatedly failing work with the owner eventually telling the customer to 'part ways.' A 2019 review also describes a no-show estimate appointment. A 2016 review describes a job delayed by incorrect diagnosis. These are serious project completion concerns.
• 21 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted toward total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score of 68.2 is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2011–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the persistent and specific pattern of owner-related rudeness and overcharging complaints heavily, as these represent a structural risk that positive technician-level reviews do not fully offset.