Find Nearby Plumbers In Memphis, Tennessee

Mitch Wright Plumbing, Heating and Air presents a deeply split profile across its review history. Individual technicians — particularly Rico, Cameron, Dakota, and Shawn — receive consistent praise for professionalism, courtesy, and technical knowledge, which elevates the professionalism and experience scores meaningfully. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a large volume of detailed, credible negative reviews spanning multiple years describe significant overcharging, hidden fees, bait-and-switch quoting, and high-pressure upselling tactics that are difficult to dismiss. Project completion is also undermined by multiple serious complaints about abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, improperly installed equipment, and management refusing to honor warranties or correct mistakes. The contrast between frontline technician quality and systemic business practice failures creates a company that scores well on individual interactions but poorly on trust, value, and follow-through.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Pricing complaints are among the most detailed and credible in the entire review set, spanning from 2006 to 2025. Multiple reviewers obtained competing quotes that were 40–75% lower than Mitch Wright's prices. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 share nearly identical structure (short, generic praise, no specifics, all 5-star). Several reviews from this date have no text at all. This pattern is consistent with review padding and should reduce confidence in the positive score cluster from that date.
• EMPTY REVIEWS — 8 reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2022-08-09 are nearly word-for-word identical, describing incompatible AC parts installation. Counted as one unique complaint for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (June 2025) are predominantly positive and focus on individual technicians. The most damaging reviews (project completion failures, warranty disputes, improper installations) span 2016–2025, indicating these are not purely historical issues.
• MANAGEMENT AND CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe rude supervisors, ignored callbacks, and management refusing to acknowledge technician errors. This is a recurring structural issue beyond individual technician performance.
• WARRANTY AND CONTRACT CONCERNS: Several reviewers report that maintenance contracts and labor warranties were not honored, and that cancellation of service plans resulted in unexpected fees.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given strong evidence of review padding in the 5-star cluster and a well-documented, multi-year pattern of pricing and project completion failures that meaningfully drag down what would otherwise be a higher professionalism and experience score.

DrainGo exhibits significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While professionalism scores moderately (68) with many positive mentions of courteous technicians, numerous complaints about rude receptionists, poor communication, and unprofessional behavior substantially lower the score. Project completion is particularly problematic (61), with recurring issues including no-shows, incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to follow through on callbacks. Pricing concerns are severe (52), with extensive evidence of hidden charges, inflated quotes, unnecessary upsells, and attempts to exploit warranty customers. Technical experience (65) shows mixed results—some technicians are skilled and knowledgeable, but others demonstrate incompetence, poor diagnostics, and defective installations. The company's pattern of warranty-related complaints suggests systematic exploitation of customers with home warranty coverage.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse pattern—multiple reviews (2018-2025) document inflated charges, hidden fees, unnecessary modifications, and upselling tactics, particularly targeting home warranty customers. This is not isolated but appears to be company practice.
• CRITICAL: Severe project completion failures—numerous documented no-shows, incomplete work, ghosting customers, failure to return for promised callbacks, and abandoned jobs spanning multiple years.
• CRITICAL: Warranty exploitation pattern—extensive evidence across reviews that company deliberately misrepresents problems to warranty companies to deny coverage, then charges customers inflated out-of-pocket fees. Multiple customers report being told work is not covered, then charged $375-$1000+ for unnecessary modifications.
• CRITICAL: Quality control failures—multiple reviews document defective installations (leaking pipes, improper faucet installation, incorrect water heater models), requiring customer callbacks and additional repairs.
• CRITICAL: Customer service dysfunction—consistent complaints about rude receptionists (named individuals: Kim, Laurie), poor phone communication, scheduling failures, and unprofessional office staff across multiple years and locations.
• CRITICAL: Deceptive diagnostic practices—pattern of technicians claiming problems don't exist or are not covered, then offering expensive 'solutions' that other plumbers later identify as unnecessary or incorrectly diagnosed.
• Recency concern: While recent reviews (2025) show some positive experiences, negative patterns persist throughout the entire review history (2015-2025), suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• Geographic inconsistency: Complaints span multiple service areas (Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi), suggesting company-wide practices rather than location-specific problems.
• Warranty company relationship: Disproportionate number of complaints involve home warranty dispatches (AHS, First American, etc.), with evidence suggesting company exploits warranty system limitations to maximize customer out-of-pocket costs.

This WW Score of 62.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) based on 125 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions. However, the score masks a deeply problematic company with systematic issues in pricing transparency, project completion reliability, and customer service integrity. The extensive documentation of warranty exploitation, hidden charges, no-shows, and incomplete work across 10+ years suggests these are not anomalies but core business practices. Customers should exercise extreme caution, particularly if using home warranty services, as the company appears to systematically exploit warranty limitations to impose additional charges.

Conway Services presents a deeply split profile: individual technicians are frequently praised for professionalism, politeness, and technical knowledge, driving moderately positive scores in those dimensions. However, the company is severely undermined by a large and consistent volume of complaints about pricing — with dozens of reviewers describing quotes as grossly inflated, deceptive, or predatory, including multiple allegations of technicians recommending unnecessary replacements and using high-pressure sales tactics. Project completion is a major liability, with a substantial number of reviews describing repeated no-call/no-show appointments, failed inspections, incomplete work, and unresolved follow-up issues spanning weeks or months. The experience dimension reflects a mixed picture: while many technicians are described as skilled and thorough, a meaningful subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, incorrect repairs, and work that failed shortly after completion. The overall WW Score of 62.4 reflects a company with genuine service talent at the individual technician level that is significantly offset by systemic failures in scheduling reliability, pricing transparency, and job completion integrity.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: A block of approximately 18 reviews dated 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09 appear to be exact duplicates of each other (identical text, identical ratings), suggesting possible review manipulation or a platform data error. These duplicates were counted once per unique review text for scoring purposes but inflate the total review count.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant portion of recent 5-star reviews (especially May 2025 cluster) are either blank (rating only, no text) or contain only 1–2 generic sentences with no specifics. This pattern is consistent with review padding.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers across many years describe being quoted prices 3x–10x higher than competitors for identical work, being charged for unnecessary parts or replacements, and experiencing bait-and-switch tactics. Several reviewers allege technicians showed fake diagnostic images or deliberately misdiagnosed systems to generate sales.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A large cluster of 1-star reviews from 2022–2023 describe repeated no-call/no-show appointments (some customers reporting 3–6 missed appointments), suggesting a systemic operational breakdown during that period.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe new installations failing inspections, gas leaks after water heater installs, incorrect equipment installed, and work left incomplete for months. This significantly weighs down the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive but are dominated by duplicates and blank entries. The most substantive negative reviews are concentrated in 2022–2024 and carry significant detail and credibility.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but consumers should weight the detailed negative reviews heavily — the systemic pricing, scheduling, and completion failures described across dozens of independent accounts represent credible and serious concerns that the volume of generic positive reviews does not offset.

Greenway Home Services shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While individual technicians frequently receive praise for professionalism and technical knowledge (72.5 and 71.0 respectively), the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints and chronic project completion failures. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension (48.0), with extensive documentation of overcharges, inflated quotes, unnecessary upsells, and lack of transparency. Project completion (58.5) is undermined by repeated no-shows, missed appointments, extended delays, poor follow-through on callbacks, and incomplete repairs requiring multiple visits. The company demonstrates a pattern of prioritizing sales over customer service, particularly through home warranty contracts.

• CRITICAL: Extensive pattern of pricing abuse across 89 mentions—customers consistently report overcharges of 200-400% above fair market rates, inflated quotes, unnecessary upsells, and lack of itemized receipts. Multiple reviews cite specific examples: $625 for a $5 part replacement, $2,900 for a $114 repair, $1,085 for modifications costing $114 in parts.
• CRITICAL: Severe project completion failures documented in 118 mentions—chronic no-shows, missed appointment windows, rescheduling without notice, multi-week delays for simple repairs, incomplete work requiring callbacks, and refusal to warranty repairs. One customer waited 24 days for a heat pump repair; another waited 4+ months for a bathtub fix.
• CRITICAL: Systematic discrimination against home warranty customers—multiple reviews indicate Greenway deliberately delays or deprioritizes American Home Shield (AHS) and First American warranty work to force customers to pay out-of-pocket or upgrade to expensive solutions. Technicians openly admit to this practice.
• CRITICAL: Deceptive sales practices—pattern of sending technicians to diagnose, then immediately dispatching high-pressure sales consultants to upsell unnecessary system replacements. Quotes jump dramatically between initial assessment and formal estimate. One customer received a quote of $17,000 for a compressor replacement that another company quoted at $4,200.
• CRITICAL: Dangerous workmanship—multiple reviews document safety hazards including gas leaks left undetected after installation, exposed electrical wires, water damage from faulty repairs, and incomplete installations. One family was exposed to 52% natural gas concentration in their attic for 2 weeks.
• PATTERN: Unresponsive customer service—extensive complaints about unreturned calls, voicemails ignored, inability to reach managers, rude phone staff, and refusal to provide itemized receipts or warranty documentation despite customer requests.
• PATTERN: Incompetent technicians—multiple reviews document technicians who misdiagnose problems, fail to complete repairs on first visit, lack basic knowledge, and require supervisor intervention. One technician did not know how to turn off an AC unit.
• PATTERN: Fake review suspicion—approximately 15-20 reviews from 2025 (recent dates) contain nearly identical phrasing praising specific technicians by name with 5-star ratings and minimal detail. Examples: 'Mateo was very knowledgeable through friendly,' 'Pablo was very nice,' 'Francisco was great.' These cluster heavily in May-March 2025 and lack specificity typical of genuine reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive with generic praise, while detailed negative reviews span 2012-2024 with specific dollar amounts and documented failures. This temporal pattern suggests possible review manipulation or reputation management.
• SYSTEMIC ISSUE: Company appears to operate with two-tier service—VIP/direct customers receive better service than home warranty customers, creating perverse incentive to deprioritize warranty work and push customers toward expensive upgrades.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (348 usable reviews) and consistent patterns across all dimensions, but the score significantly understates customer risk because it does not fully capture the severity and frequency of pricing fraud, safety hazards, and deliberate service discrimination documented in the reviews. Customers should treat this company as high-risk, particularly for home warranty work, and obtain multiple independent quotes before engaging.

This aggregated review set covers multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names (Norfolk Plumbing, Rod-O-Matic, Patriot Plumbing across multiple geographic locations including Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, and others), which severely limits the reliability of a single composite score. The positive reviews — concentrated heavily in 2024–2025 — describe prompt, professional, knowledgeable technicians and fair pricing, with many customers expressing strong loyalty and repeat use. However, a very large volume of deeply negative reviews, particularly associated with the Patriot Plumbing brand operating through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, AHS, HMS, 2-10), describe a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud: misdiagnosis to avoid warranty coverage, unnecessary upsell charges, cash-only payment demands, abandoned jobs, failure to return calls, rude or threatening behavior by owners and staff, and work left incomplete or made worse. The pricing dimension is particularly polarized — praised as fair and competitive by direct customers, but condemned as exploitative and deceptive by home warranty customers. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by numerous accounts of jobs not finished, technicians leaving without completing work, and repeat visits failing to resolve issues.

• CRITICAL: These reviews appear to represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the same or similar names across different U.S. states (Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and others). A single WW Score is not reliable for this dataset and should not be used to evaluate any single contractor.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews with no text (rating only) are present throughout the dataset. Additionally, several reviews from the same date batches (e.g., 2025-06-07, 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10, 2023-06-10) appear to be bulk-submitted with generic praise and no specifics, suggesting possible solicited or incentivized review campaigns.
• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: A large and consistent pattern across dozens of negative reviews describes Patriot Plumbing (particularly the home warranty-contracted version) deliberately misdiagnosing issues, adding non-covered charges, demanding cash-only payment, and failing to complete work — consistent with a systematic scheme to extract out-of-pocket payments from home warranty customers.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNINGS: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner (referred to as Kirk, Steve, or Jimmy depending on location) as verbally abusive, threatening, showing up at customers' homes to demand payment, sending threatening texts, and in one case allegedly cutting a customer's water pressure line in retaliation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive and appear to represent different branch locations or operators than the older negative reviews. Older reviews (2018–2023) contain the highest concentration of serious complaints. Recency weighting partially improves the score but does not eliminate the serious concerns.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing Mike and Steven fixing a leak behind a shower appears verbatim twice (2024-06-09 and 2023-07-25), suggesting a copy-paste or system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about being without a water heater for over a month appears verbatim twice (2022-11-12), suggesting a system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about avoiding the company and paying $750 for modifications appears verbatim twice (2020-07-22), suggesting a system duplication.
• NON-PLUMBING REVIEWS PRESENT: Several reviews reference HVAC, electrical, and AC work (Nick's reviews from 2024-06-09), which are outside the scope of plumbing contractor evaluation and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• UNPERMITTED WORK ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer explicitly states Patriot Plumbing performed a full repipe without pulling a permit and that the matter was under investigation by the California State Contractors Board.

This WW Score of 62.1 should be treated with very low confidence as a guide to any single contractor, as the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses across different states and ownership structures; the score reflects a deeply divided customer base where direct-hire customers report largely positive experiences while home warranty-referred customers report a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct.

National Economy Plumbers presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately due to a significant number of positive mentions of courteous, prompt, and communicative technicians, but is substantially dragged down by multiple credible negative accounts including a technician laughing at a mask request, loud music being played on the job, a staff member hanging up on a customer, a plumber entering a property without permission and making aggressive political remarks, and unreturned phone calls over multiple days. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while a handful of reviewers praise reasonable or fair pricing, a substantial cluster of detailed negative reviews describe charges perceived as grossly excessive, lack of upfront quotes, parts marked up 4x retail, and at least one instance of a free estimate being misrepresented. Project completion is also problematic, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that work was not completed correctly on the first visit, that callbacks were charged again rather than honored under warranty, and one severe case involving flooding, crossed water lines, and unpaid supplier liens. Experience scores slightly higher, as many positive reviewers specifically praise technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, but is offset by credible accounts of failed repairs, worsened plumbing conditions after service, and a furnace left unfixed across multiple years.

• 11 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Fantastic!', 'Very friendly & professional', 'Did a good job', 'Excellent service & price') with no specific details. These may inflate the perceived positive sentiment and were weighted minimally.
• A recurring pattern of loyal long-term customers leaving glowing reviews contrasts sharply with detailed, specific negative experiences from other customers — suggesting inconsistent service quality rather than fake reviews, but warranting caution.
• The review mentioning flooding a building four times, crossed hot/cold water lines, unpaid supplier liens, and unsupervised workers smoking indoors (2014) is an extreme outlier and was weighted heavily in project completion and experience scoring due to its specificity and severity.
• Multiple negative reviews reference the same staff member 'Glen' by name in the context of dismissive or rude responses to billing complaints, suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the administrative level.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive content span 2014–2024. The most recent reviews (2024) include both strong positives and strong negatives, indicating the mixed quality pattern has persisted and is not improving over time.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews spanning approximately 11 years, with sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions to carry HIGH confidence labels; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance between detailed positive and detailed negative experiences, suggesting that service quality is highly inconsistent depending on which technician is dispatched and which type of job is performed.