Find Nearby Plumbers In Memphis, Tennessee

Hugo Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and fair pricing, with multiple customers praising their problem-solving ability and cost-effectiveness compared to competitors. However, professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by serious failures: unprofessional behavior and failure to complete work on the A/C drain job, a hidden $75 estimate charge, and a locked parts store during posted hours. While recent positive reviews (2020–2022) show competent work, older negative incidents (2022–2024) reveal inconsistent service delivery and poor follow-through on callbacks.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 2–6 years old (2018–2022). Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2022 are recent; one is highly negative (estimate billing issue). Limited recent data reduces confidence in current performance.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review from 2022-03-10 explicitly documents incomplete work (sludge not removed despite customer request), unprofessional behavior, and broken callback promise. This is a critical failure.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2024-02-26 reports undisclosed $75 estimate charge after customer declined service. This contradicts the 'fair pricing' narrative and suggests potential billing practices issues.
• OPERATIONAL ISSUE: Review from 2022-01-15 indicates parts store not opening at posted times, suggesting operational/management problems beyond plumbing work itself.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2018–2020 are uniformly 5-star with detailed, specific praise (least invasive approach, fair pricing, expertise). While credible, they are dated and may not reflect current operations.

This WW Score of 79.2 should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from 2024–2022), significant documented failures in project completion and professionalism, and a 4–6 year gap in most positive reviews. The score reflects a company with genuine technical expertise but inconsistent execution and customer service follow-through.

Arkansas Rooter earns strong marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising friendly attitudes, fast response times, and clear communication from named technicians. Pricing is a notable strength, with several reviewers independently noting they were cheaper than competitors, honored estimates, and even proactively cut deals on simple jobs. Project completion is scored more conservatively due to two negative data points: one reviewer explicitly states the commode was broken before the technician left and nothing was done to fix it, and one technician was unable to resolve the problem at all (though handled it graciously). Experience scores well overall, with technicians demonstrating diagnostic ability and problem-solving across multiple complex sewer and drainage scenarios, though the unresolved jobs temper the ceiling. The majority of the most detailed and credible reviews are from 2016 or earlier, which meaningfully reduces confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). The majority of substantive reviews are from 2016 or earlier, some dating back to 2006. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• UNUSABLE REVIEWS: 4 reviews contained no usable text ('unknown', '.', 'Very Good', or a single vague sentence) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• NEGATIVE SIGNALS: One review (2006) explicitly states the job was left incomplete with a broken commode and no repair attempt. One review (2011) notes the technician could not fix the problem. These are factored into project completion scoring.
• ALL 5-STAR PATTERN: 15 of 17 reviews are 5-star ratings. While several contain specific, credible detail, the near-universal 5-star pattern warrants mild caution. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but the pattern is noted.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: 17 total reviews across what appears to be a multi-year business history is a thin dataset. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the positive signals are credible and specific, but the small review volume, heavy skew toward older reviews, and two explicit project completion failures prevent a high-confidence assessment of current service quality.

Locke Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in parts sourcing and customer communication, with multiple reviews praising their knowledge of vintage/hard-to-find plumbing components and responsive email support. However, the score is significantly impacted by one severe project completion failure (5+ months with $2,700 paid and no meaningful work completed), which directly contradicts the otherwise positive pattern. Pricing feedback is mixed—several reviews cite competitive pricing and value, but one customer objected to high part costs ($89.96 flush button plus $10 shipping). The business appears to operate primarily as a plumbing supply retailer rather than a full-service contractor, which affects the relevance of project completion metrics.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2019-04-10) describes severe project abandonment—$2,700 paid with no meaningful work after 5+ months. This is a major red flag for project completion reliability and directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive reviews.
• BUSINESS MODEL AMBIGUITY: Most reviews describe parts ordering/shipping and technical advice rather than on-site plumbing work. The single negative review appears to involve actual installation work, suggesting inconsistent service delivery between retail and contracting services.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2014-2019). Only 2 reviews are from 2021-2022. Limited recent data makes it difficult to assess current operational standards.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews (2017, 2018, 2021) contain unusually detailed, enthusiastic narratives with specific part numbers and shipping timelines. While not definitively fake, the consistency of praise across a decade with only one negative outlier warrants caution.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2016-03-10 describes poor phone support (automated disconnect, reluctant CSR), contradicting other reviews praising email responsiveness.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical expertise and professionalism appear genuinely strong based on multiple detailed reviews, the single catastrophic project completion failure ($2,700 unpaid work over 5+ months) is a material risk factor that cannot be ignored. The business model appears primarily retail-focused, making contractor reliability difficult to assess. Recency of data is weak, and the stark contrast between 9 five-star reviews and 1 one-star review suggests either significant operational inconsistency or potential review authenticity issues. Prospective customers should specifically inquire about installation project timelines and payment terms before engaging.

Johnson Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for politeness, responsiveness, and communication across 8 reviews. Project completion is generally solid but marred by one significant failure (incomplete gas line installation with property damage) and one bait-and-switch pricing incident that severely undermines trust. Experience scores well based on technical competency mentions, though the quality issues in 2 reviews create concern. The pricing dimension is heavily damaged by explicit deceptive quoting practices and hidden fees, though most other reviews do not address pricing. Overall, the company shows capability but has serious integrity issues that prevent a higher score.

• CRITICAL: Bait-and-switch pricing allegation (2016-07-25) with explicit claim of undisclosed fees ($35 cable fee, travel time charges) and poor follow-up from management. Customer was quoted $135/hour but charged $240 to start without prior disclosure.
• CRITICAL: Incomplete project with property damage (2020-01-11): Only 2 of 3 gas drops installed, sheet rock cracked and left with gaps, requiring customer to pay for repairs.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2018-2019 (5+ years old). Only 2 reviews from past 3 years. Recent data is limited.
• One review is blank/minimal (2018-09-14, just a period), suggesting possible data quality issue.
• Conflicting accounts from same incident: Customer claims told $135/hour with no mention of extras; office manager (Vivian Johnson) acknowledges $35 cable fee but denies travel time charges, creating credibility gap.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience dimensions are supported by multiple recent mentions, the pricing dimension is severely compromised by documented deceptive quoting practices, and project completion is undermined by a major failure with property damage. The age of most reviews (5+ years) and limited recent data further reduce confidence. The company shows capability but has demonstrated integrity issues that warrant careful vetting before hiring.

Stewart Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians across 89 mentions. However, the company shows significant variability in project completion reliability, with multiple reports of no-shows, missed appointments, and incomplete work spanning from 2014-2022, particularly involving technician Ken. Pricing concerns emerge in 28 mentions, with customers reporting high labor rates, unexpected charges, and perceived overpricing. Technical skill is generally solid when work is completed, but the pattern of abandoned jobs and follow-up failures substantially undermines overall trustworthiness. Recent reviews (2025) are uniformly positive, suggesting possible operational improvements, but historical data reveals systemic issues with accountability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show and abandoned-job complaints spanning 2014-2022, particularly with technician Ken Tyler, including cases where work was never completed despite customer payment and repeated promises to return
• PATTERN DETECTED: Significant recency bias in dataset—reviews from 2025 are uniformly 5-star with detailed positive narratives, while 2014-2022 reviews show mixed quality with serious complaints. This suggests either major operational changes or potential review manipulation
• PRICING CONCERNS: 28 mentions of pricing issues including overcharges, unexpected fees, high hourly rates ($160+), and charges for parts at marked-up prices. Customers report feeling gouged despite initial discounts
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, and unresolved issues after initial service visits. One customer waited 3 months for Ken to complete faucet repairs across 5 visits with wrong parts ordered repeatedly
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Documented pattern of unreturned calls, unresponsive communication, and lack of follow-up, particularly in 2014-2019 reviews
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 2025 reviews show suspiciously similar structure (specific technician names, detailed explanations, uniformly glowing language) compared to mixed historical reviews. All 2025 reviews are 5-star with substantive detail, while older reviews show natural variation
• WARRANTY COMPANY ISSUES: Two reviews document Ken misrepresenting work completion to home warranty companies (AHS, American Home Shield), with one case escalated to investigation by the warranty provider

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent 2025 reviews suggest improved operations, the extensive historical record (2014-2022) documents serious and repeated failures in project completion, communication, and accountability. The dramatic shift from mixed/negative historical reviews to uniformly positive recent reviews raises concerns about data reliability. Customers considering this company should heavily weight the documented pattern of no-shows and incomplete work, particularly if the same technicians are involved. The score reflects an average across all data, but the recency and consistency issues mean this company's true current reliability cannot be confidently assessed from this dataset alone.

United Plumbing shows strong technical competence and generally reliable professionalism, with many customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns: multiple recent reviews (2022-2024) allege overcharging, lack of upfront quotes, and charges 10-80x higher than competitors for identical work. The pattern of complaints about elderly customers being targeted for inflated estimates is particularly troubling. While older reviews are consistently positive, the recent negative trend suggests either a change in business practices or a pattern of predatory pricing that cannot be ignored.

• CRITICAL: Multiple recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022) allege systematic overcharging and targeting of elderly customers. Review from 2024-09-03 claims $800 for ~1 hour labor; 2024-06-11 claims $1,600 estimate vs. $50 actual cost elsewhere; 2022-02-14 claims $450 + $3,310 estimate vs. $40 actual cost.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2013-2020 (older than 4 years). Negative reviews cluster in 2022-2024 (recent). This temporal pattern suggests deterioration in business practices or a shift toward predatory pricing.
• PRICING PATTERN: Negative reviews consistently cite lack of upfront quotes, surprise high bills after work completion, and charges dramatically exceeding market rates. This is not isolated complaint but repeated pattern across multiple customers.
• POTENTIAL FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews from 2015-2020 use nearly identical phrasing ('Mark Miller,' 'excellent service,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend') with generic praise and no specific details. However, these are older and may reflect genuine repeat customers rather than fabricated reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK ALLEGATION: 2023-01-05 review documents incomplete drain clearing requiring callback at additional cost, suggesting quality control issues.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 reflects mixed data, the recent pattern of serious pricing allegations (2022-2024) contradicts the older positive reviews (2013-2020), suggesting the company's current practices may be significantly worse than this score indicates. The company demonstrates technical competence but appears to have serious ethical issues around pricing transparency and targeting vulnerable customers. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written quotes upfront and verify pricing with independent contractors before engaging this company.