Find Nearby Plumbers In Memphis, Tennessee

Foster Plumbing demonstrates solid performance across all dimensions with a WW Score of 82.3. Professionalism and project completion are well-supported by multiple reviews highlighting punctuality, communication, and thorough work. Pricing is perceived as fair and transparent. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in reviews describing efficient repairs and quality workmanship. However, one significant 1-star review from 2015 citing a missed appointment without notification substantially impacts the professionalism score and overall confidence. Most positive reviews are older than 12 months, which limits recency validation.

• Recency concern: 5 of 7 reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2012). Only 1 review from 2024 and 1 from 2023. Recent performance cannot be fully validated.
• One critical negative review (1-star, 2015) citing missed appointment and no communication. This directly contradicts professionalism claims in other reviews and significantly impacts confidence in punctuality/responsiveness.
• Potential review age bias: Older reviews may not reflect current business practices or staffing.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the data shows generally positive performance, the small sample size (7 reviews), significant age of most reviews (5+ years old), and one serious professionalism failure create uncertainty about current reliability. Recent performance validation is needed.

Magnolia Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and professional demeanor across multiple reviews. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident from successful leak detection and repair work. However, project completion shows mixed signals—while most jobs were completed, one 2012 review indicates a heating system repair that required multiple visits and ultimately failed to resolve the underlying issue, suggesting potential limitations in diagnostic accuracy or scope management. Pricing data is sparse; only two reviews mention cost, with one noting $700 for multiple visits and another praising fair prices, making confident pricing assessment difficult. The review portfolio is heavily weighted toward older reviews (2005, 2012, 2020, 2022), with only one recent review from 2024.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 6 reviews are older than 2 years (2005, 2012, 2020, 2022). Only 1 recent review from 2024. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: 2012 review describes a heating system that required multiple service calls, was not fully repaired, and still requires replacement. This contradicts the 5-star rating and suggests either customer dissatisfaction with outcome or misalignment between rating and actual satisfaction.
• PRICING DATA INSUFFICIENT: Only 2 of 6 reviews mention pricing. One review explicitly states uncertainty about pricing fairness ('pricing and quality is hard to judge since I don't know the price that was done'). Pricing score is based on minimal evidence.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: All 6 reviews are 5-star despite documented issues (incomplete repair, multiple visits). This pattern suggests potential rating inflation or selection bias in review collection.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias (83% of reviews older than 2 years), insufficient pricing data (2 mentions only), and a documented project completion failure that contradicts its 5-star rating. The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service quality.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism and fair pricing across multiple reviews, with customers praising responsiveness, friendliness, and reasonable rates. However, a critical 2016 review documents a significant project failure involving incomplete water line replacement and poor follow-up communication, which substantially impacts the project completion score. The contractor shows technical competence in routine repairs but the documented failure to complete work properly and unresponsiveness to callbacks represents a serious concern. Most positive reviews are older (2014–2016), with only one recent review from 2024, limiting confidence in current performance standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 1 of 5 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024-08-07). Four reviews are 8+ years old (2014–2016), making it difficult to assess current service quality and reliability.
• CRITICAL PROJECT FAILURE: The 2016 review documents incomplete work (old poly lines not replaced), incorrect installation (cold water hookup in wrong location), property damage (wet carpet), and non-responsiveness to customer callbacks. This is a serious red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• INCONSISTENT TRACK RECORD: Stark contrast between glowing reviews and the documented failure suggests either significant service variability or possible changes in business operations over time.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total provides limited statistical confidence. The single negative review carries substantial weight due to small sample size.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review in past 12 months) and a documented project failure that raises questions about current reliability and follow-through, despite positive feedback on professionalism and pricing.

Franklin Family Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with customers praising Bob's communication, punctuality, and skill level. Pricing is consistently described as fair and transparent, with customers noting significant savings compared to competitors. However, project completion data is limited to only two explicit mentions, and one serious allegation of unresponsiveness and potential discriminatory behavior (from December 2021) significantly undermines overall reliability. The majority of positive reviews are from 2021, with only one recent review from March 2024, limiting recency validation.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2021-12-13) alleges serious unresponsiveness and potential discriminatory behavior—customer claims Bob ignored multiple calls/texts from them but responded immediately to a white friend inquiring about similar work. This is a severe professionalism and character concern that cannot be ignored.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five reviews are from 2021 (oldest is May 2021). Only one recent review from March 2024. Limited recent data to validate current service quality.
• PROJECT COMPLETION UNDERREPRESENTED: Only 2 reviews explicitly mention job completion/follow-through. This dimension carries 35% weight but has limited mention count, reducing confidence.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: The four positive reviews use similar enthusiastic language and structure (e.g., 'AWESOME experience', 'NEAT and CLEAN job', 'ALL my plumbing needs'). While not definitively fake, the consistency warrants caution.

This score should be treated with caution. While positive reviews highlight genuine strengths in professionalism and expertise, the serious allegation of discriminatory behavior and unresponsiveness in the 2021 review, combined with limited recent data and underrepresentation of project completion evidence, significantly reduce confidence in the overall reliability of this assessment. The WW Score of 82.1 does not fully capture the reputational risk posed by the discrimination allegation.

Three positive reviews explicitly praise Jeremy's professionalism, responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship on plumbing jobs. However, one serious allegation of attempted scam from a subcontractor significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The positive reviews cite reasonable estimates, quick completion, one-year labor warranty, and pricing at half the cost of competitors. The scam allegation is unverified but cannot be ignored. With only 4 total reviews and conflicting signals, confidence remains moderate.

• CRITICAL: One review alleges attempted scam/fraud by the contractor. This is a serious allegation that contradicts the positive reviews and raises questions about business practices and integrity.
• Small sample size (4 reviews total) limits statistical reliability. Scores are based on 3 mentions per dimension, which is at the threshold of moderate confidence.
• Review dates span from December 2022 to March 2024. The most recent review (March 2024) is the negative scam allegation, which is concerning timing.
• Three of four reviews appear to be from satisfied customers, but the positive reviews lack specific technical detail about workmanship quality—they focus more on price and responsiveness.

This score should be treated with caution due to the serious fraud allegation in the most recent review, small sample size, and conflicting signals about contractor integrity. The positive reviews suggest good pricing and responsiveness, but the scam allegation requires investigation before relying on this score for a hiring decision.

Everything Handyman demonstrates strong technical skill and craftsmanship across the three reviews analyzed, with explicit praise for problem-solving ability and quality workmanship on complex tasks like door realignment and shower modifications. Professionalism is supported by helpful communication and thoughtful service, though mentions are limited. Project completion is evidenced by successful job delivery, though no explicit timeline or callback information is provided. No pricing information appears in any review, preventing assessment of value or fairness. The oldest review dates to 2015, limiting recency assessment.

• Only 3 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Most recent review is from January 2024, but second review is from 2017 and third from 2015 — significant age gap suggests limited recent activity or review collection
• No pricing data available across any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• No explicit mention of punctuality, timeliness, or callback follow-through in any review
• All reviews are positive (4.0–5.0 stars) with no negative feedback — consider whether negative reviews may be absent from dataset

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and significant recency gaps; while the available data suggests competent craftsmanship and helpful service, the score is not robust enough to confidently predict future performance without additional recent reviews.