Find Nearby Plumbers In Memphis, Tennessee

Gardner Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3. Professionalism is a clear strength (87.5), with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous demeanor, communication, and cleanliness across 68 reviews. Project completion scores well at 81.0 based on 52 mentions, though some negative reviews cite incomplete follow-up and unresolved issues. Experience is solid at 84.5 with 42 mentions highlighting technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 76.0 (18 mentions), with several customers reporting surprise cost escalations, overcharging, and quotes significantly higher than competitors. Recent reviews (past 6 months) are predominantly 5-star with minimal critical detail, which raises some confidence concerns.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 27 reviews from June 2025 and January 2025 are nearly identical in structure—all 5-star, all praising professionalism/efficiency, many mentioning Moen device installations, with minimal specific detail. This clustering and repetitive phrasing suggests possible review manipulation or incentivized reviews.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple 1-star reviews (2024-12-11, 2020-02-12, 2021-10-03) explicitly cite surprise cost escalations, bait-and-quote tactics, and overcharging relative to competitors. One customer reported being quoted $850 then $1,650 for the same job.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2021-10-03, 2020-02-12) document lack of response to customer concerns and failure to honor callbacks, contradicting the professionalism narrative.
• INTERNAL CONDUCT ISSUE: One 1-star review (2024-05-17) from a former employee alleges theft of tools, marijuana use on job sites, and hostile behavior from ownership when legal action was taken. While this is an employee grievance rather than customer experience, it raises integrity questions.
• RECENCY BIAS: 40+ reviews are from 2025 (mostly June) with uniformly positive ratings and generic praise. Only 4 reviews from past 12 months contain substantive criticism. This skew toward recent generic praise reduces confidence in overall score.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Negative reviews span multiple years and cite different technicians, suggesting inconsistent service quality across the team rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuinely strong professionalism and experience metrics supported by substantial evidence, the recent clustering of nearly identical 5-star reviews raises concerns about review authenticity. The pricing dimension is underrepresented (only 18 mentions) but those mentions are detailed and credible, indicating real customer dissatisfaction with cost transparency. The company appears capable of excellent work but inconsistent in pricing practices and follow-up accountability. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes and clarify scope before committing.

Otis Everon demonstrates strong professionalism across nearly all reviews, with consistent praise for friendliness, responsiveness, and technical knowledge. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, though one 2017 review documents a significant diagnostic failure that caused substantial property damage. Pricing is perceived as fair and competitive by customers who mentioned it. The contractor shows strong problem-solving ability and willingness to work around customer schedules. The 2017 negative review is a material concern but is now 7+ years old; more recent reviews (2018-2024) are uniformly positive.

• One critical negative review (2017-02-02) documents a missed diagnosis of a pinhole leak that resulted in major water damage and flooring replacement. The technician dismissed customer concerns and provided incorrect assessment. This is a serious professional failure, though it occurred 7 years ago.
• Most reviews are 5-star ratings with generally positive language, but they contain specific details (expansion tank explanation, drain clearing methodology, multiple visits, specific dates) that suggest authentic customer experiences rather than fake reviews.
• Recency bias noted: 4 of 10 reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent), 3 from 2018-2019 (older), and 3 from 2017 or earlier (significantly older). Recent reviews show no quality degradation.
• One review (2019-08-08) provides exceptionally detailed technical explanation and cost comparison, lending high credibility to that assessment.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to 10 reviews with substantial specific detail and consistent patterns across recent years, but the score is appropriately conservative due to one documented diagnostic failure in 2017 that caused significant customer harm, which prevents a higher rating despite otherwise strong performance metrics.

Bobby Wilson Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly cite punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and a clean work ethic across many years of reviews. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as finished efficiently and on time, though one review explicitly notes a job was not finished and one reviewer noted it took a couple of months to get a visit, which tempers the score. Experience is well-supported by specific mentions of skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and problem-solving on varied plumbing tasks. Pricing is a mixed picture: the majority of reviewers who mention cost describe it as fair or even exceptionally reasonable, but two reviews explicitly flag the pricing as too expensive or note choosing a cheaper competitor, which pulls the pricing score down from what would otherwise be a higher mark.

• 8 reviews contain only 'unknown', 'N/A', 'Fine', or similarly non-informative text and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute ratings data only.
• The majority of reviews are dated between 2007 and 2018, with no reviews from the past several years. Recency is a significant concern — this score reflects a historical picture and may not represent current service quality.
• One review (2010-08-14, 5 stars) states 'Jobs not finished' while simultaneously rating 5 stars — this is an internal inconsistency and was weighted negatively for project completion despite the high star rating.
• One review (2014-04-14) notes it took 'a couple of months' for the contractor to arrive, which is a notable responsiveness concern factored into professionalism.
• One review (2015-08-16) explicitly notes the contractor 'once failed to advise he would be late,' which is a minor but real professionalism flag.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and date, and include both praise and criticism, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with good dimension coverage and authentic-appearing reviews, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the fact that all reviews are at least 6 years old, making it unclear whether this score reflects the contractor's current performance.

McMullin Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous service across 22 reviews. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with 16 mentions highlighting fair costs and no hidden fees. Experience is solid with 13 mentions of quality workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, project completion shows vulnerability: while most jobs are completed successfully, two significant negative reviews (from 2025-03-11 and 2023-10-23) document failures to stand behind work and quality control issues with apprentice installations, reducing confidence in this dimension despite 12 positive mentions.

• Four reviews contain no text (2024-06-09, 2021-06-10 x2, 2021-06-10) but have 5-star ratings—these are flagged as potentially low-quality data points but included in analysis as they do not contradict the pattern
• One 1-star review with no text (2021-06-10) creates ambiguity about the actual complaint
• Cluster of identical dates (2021-06-10, 2024-06-09) suggests possible batch posting or platform migration, but review content varies sufficiently to avoid fake review classification
• Two critical negative reviews (2025-03-11 and 2023-10-23) document serious issues: failure to warranty work and improper installation by apprentice causing safety hazard (carbon monoxide). These are legitimate complaints that significantly impact project completion confidence
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (majority from 2021 and earlier); only 7 reviews from past 12 months. Recent data shows mixed results (1 five-star, 1 one-star, 5 five-star)

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence for professionalism and pricing, but project completion carries elevated risk due to documented failures in quality control and warranty follow-through. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong historical performance tempered by recent negative experiences and older review concentration.

Mario's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across most reviews. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though two older reviews cite overcharging concerns. Project completion is solid overall, with most jobs finished on time and to satisfaction, though one 2023 review documents abandonment of a job mid-process. Technical expertise is evident in diagnostic ability and quality workmanship. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects reliable service with some reliability concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• One highly negative 2024 review (Feb 15) alleges faulty work, non-responsiveness, and fraud; claims shop address does not exist. This is a serious red flag requiring investigation, though it contrasts sharply with 24 other positive reviews.
• One 2023 review documents job abandonment after scheduling delays and incomplete work, suggesting potential capacity or reliability issues during that period.
• Two older reviews (2022) cite overpricing concerns, though these are isolated and predate the majority of recent positive feedback.
• Most reviews (20 of 25) are from 2024 or 2023; only 5 reviews are older than 2 years, suggesting recent service quality is the primary indicator.
• The 2024 fraud allegation is inconsistent with the pattern of 24 other reviews praising honesty and professionalism; this warrants verification before full trust.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while 24 of 25 reviews are positive and recent (past 18 months), one detailed 2024 allegation of fraud and non-responsiveness creates material doubt about consistency and trustworthiness that cannot be ignored without independent verification.

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.