Find Nearby Plumbers In Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Titan Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (86.5), project completion (85.3), and technical experience (84.7). The company excels at punctuality, courteous communication, and skilled workmanship, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians by name and highlighting their knowledge and efficiency. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (71.2), with a substantial minority of reviews citing overcharging, excessive labor rates, and aggressive upselling tactics. This pricing concern is significant enough to materially impact the overall score despite strong performance in other dimensions.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: 58 mentions of pricing issues reveal a stark divide—many reviews praise fair pricing and value, while others report charges of $400–$950 for work that competitors completed for $130–$350. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices or significant variation in how quotes are presented and justified.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Approximately 25 reviews (10.7% of total) rate the company 1–2 stars, with recurring complaints about overcharging, poor communication, unauthorized charges, and dismissive customer service from office staff. These are not isolated incidents but a pattern.
• OFFICE STAFF CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 8) specifically criticize receptionists/office staff for rudeness, hanging up on customers, processing unauthorized charges, and defensive responses to pricing questions. This contrasts sharply with praise for field technicians.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A cluster of ~40 reviews from 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10 show suspiciously similar language ('professional,' 'efficient,' 'knowledgeable,' 'courteous') with minimal detail and all 5-star ratings. While not conclusive, this warrants caution. However, the presence of detailed negative reviews and older reviews with specific names and situations suggests the dataset is not entirely fabricated.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2021–2023) contain more critical feedback and pricing complaints. This may reflect recent management changes, improved practices, or review filtering.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: At least 3 reviews mention warranty disputes, incomplete repairs, or failure to honor warranty obligations, suggesting potential gaps in quality assurance or accountability.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing Titan Plumbing's overall service quality, supported by 234 reviews with high confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical internal tension: field technicians consistently earn praise for professionalism and skill, while office operations and pricing practices generate significant dissatisfaction. Prospective customers should expect high-quality workmanship and courteous technicians but should obtain detailed written quotes, verify pricing against competitors, and be prepared to negotiate or dispute charges if they feel overcharged. The company's willingness to honor price-match guarantees (noted in at least one review) suggests room for negotiation.

Lee demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, friendliness, and work ethic. Pricing feedback is limited but highly positive, with one review highlighting honest diagnosis and costs coming in significantly below the quote. Project completion is well-documented with timely delivery and attention to detail. Experience is evidenced by technical problem-solving ability and quality workmanship. However, the small sample size (5 reviews, 1 unusable) and age of most reviews (2011–2016) limit confidence in this score.

• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical and warrants caution
• Review dates are significantly outdated: most reviews are 8–13 years old (2011–2016), with only one from 2016; no recent reviews from past 12 months
• First review contains only a rating with no text content, reducing usable data
• Small sample size (5 total reviews) limits statistical reliability
• Lack of specificity in some reviews (e.g., 'He is good') combined with universal 5-star ratings suggests possible selection bias or incomplete review data

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, extreme age of reviews, and absence of any critical feedback; while the available data is positive, it does not provide sufficient recent evidence to confidently assess current performance.

L & J Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous service. Project completion is solid, with all jobs finished successfully and customers satisfied with results. Pricing appears fair based on one explicit mention of competitive quotes. Technical knowledge and workmanship are evident in two reviews, though limited detail on complexity. The small sample size (3 reviews) and older dates (oldest from 2021) limit confidence in the overall score.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and may not be representative
• Review dates span 2021–2023, with oldest review nearly 3 years old; limited recent data
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while not necessarily fake, this perfect record should be interpreted cautiously
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention; insufficient data for reliable pricing assessment
• Experience dimension based on only 2 mentions; limited evidence of technical depth

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and directionally positive, but should not be relied upon for major decisions without additional recent reviews, as the sample size is too small and data is not current enough to provide high confidence.

One Call Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning over two decades, with the majority of customers praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and solid workmanship across a wide variety of plumbing jobs. Professionalism scores well overall, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out named technicians for politeness, communication, and punctuality — though a handful of negative reviews describe serious lapses including a no-show, a hostile owner interaction, and allegations of unprofessional conduct. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers describe costs as fair or reasonable, multiple credible negative reviews cite significantly inflated quotes, undisclosed service call fees, and charges for incomplete or ineffective work, which meaningfully pulls the pricing score down. Project completion is generally strong — most jobs are described as fully resolved — but several reviews document work that failed shortly after the visit, callbacks that were denied or charged again, and at least one case of damage caused during service. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is tempered by a few reviews describing technicians who appeared to lack the tools or knowledge to complete the job correctly.

• 8 reviews contain no text at all (blank or garbled content) and were excluded from scoring — these blank 5-star entries slightly inflate the overall rating average and are a minor concern.
• Several reviews appear to reference HVAC and air conditioning work, which is outside the scope of plumbing services — these may indicate this business listing aggregates reviews from multiple service types or locations, reducing comparability.
• One review (2023-06-10, 1-star) references repeated failed AC repairs — unrelated to plumbing and likely a misattributed review.
• One review (2021-06-28, 1-star) references a missing AC component — also unrelated to plumbing.
• One review (2018-07-23, 1-star) references HVAC failure — unrelated to plumbing.
• The review corpus spans from 2000 to 2025, meaning a significant portion of reviews (roughly 40+) are more than 5 years old and may not reflect current service quality or ownership. Recency weighting was applied in scoring.
• Multiple negative reviews describe a pattern of: undisclosed service call fees, inflated quotes, and pressure to approve unnecessary work — this pattern across unrelated reviewers adds credibility to these complaints and warrants a pricing confidence penalty.
• One detailed 1-star review (2021-02-26) alleges sexist behavior by an owner or manager, property damage, and refusal to remedy — this is a serious flag that was factored into professionalism and project completion scoring.
• One 1-star review (2019-05-03) alleges a technician attempted to upsell a $5,000 full repipe for a simple clog that another plumber fixed for $240 — consistent with the pricing manipulation pattern noted above.
• Some very early reviews (pre-2010) reference individuals by name (Tony, Paul) who may no longer be associated with the business, limiting their relevance to current operations.
• No clear fake review pattern detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, and name different technicians across different time periods, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (136 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust — however, the wide date range (2000–2025), the presence of credible negative reviews documenting pricing manipulation and incomplete work, and the inclusion of off-topic HVAC reviews introduce meaningful uncertainty, so the score should be treated as a reasonable but cautious estimate of current service quality.

Tim Ferguson demonstrates strong technical competency and professionalism across most recent reviews (2024-2025), with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, politeness, and thorough work. Project completion is reliable with multiple accounts of timely installations and follow-through service. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple older reviews (2016-2020) documenting aggressive upselling, hidden diagnostic fees, and estimates perceived as grossly inflated. The company shows a stark performance divide: recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews reveal serious concerns about billing practices and customer service failures. This suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review manipulation.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 38 of 56 reviews are dated 2025-06-07 to 2025-05-10 (within 1 month), with 34 reviews all rated 5.0 stars with minimal detail. This clustering is atypical and raises concerns about review authenticity or bulk submission.
• STARK TEMPORAL DIVIDE: Recent reviews (2024-2025) are uniformly 5-star with glowing praise; older reviews (2014-2022) contain multiple 1-star ratings with detailed complaints about billing, honesty, and customer service. This dramatic reversal warrants skepticism.
• PRICING CONCERNS DOCUMENTED: Multiple independent reviews from 2016-2020 report overcharging, double-billing for diagnostics, inflated estimates ($6,000 vs. $850 for same service), and aggressive upselling tactics. These are specific, detailed complaints, not generic criticism.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN RECENT REVIEWS: Many 2025 reviews lack specifics (e.g., 'Great job!', 'Wonderful experience!!', 'The guys did a great job!') with no detail about what was fixed or why service was exceptional. This contrasts with older detailed reviews.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings, suggesting incomplete or placeholder submissions.
• PROFESSIONALISM SCORE INFLATED BY RECENCY: While recent reviews praise professionalism highly, older reviews document no-shows, late arrivals without notice, and poor attitudes. Confidence in professionalism is tempered by this historical pattern.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated score of 78.2 reflects strong recent performance, the overwhelming concentration of 5-star reviews in a single month, combined with detailed historical complaints about billing practices and customer service, suggests either significant operational changes or potential review manipulation. The pricing dimension is particularly unreliable due to limited recent mentions; older pricing complaints are specific and credible but may not reflect current practices. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying current billing policies before engaging this contractor.

Simmons Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion issues, including multiple reports of no-shows, incomplete work, failure to honor warranties, and poor follow-up on callbacks. Pricing feedback is mixed—many customers report fair and reasonable rates, but several complaints cite overcharges, inflated estimates, and lack of transparency. The company shows inconsistency across service quality, with some exceptional experiences contrasted by serious failures in accountability and customer service recovery.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe project completion failures documented—no-shows on emergency calls, abandoned work, refusal to honor warranties, and complete lack of callback responsiveness. At least 8 reviews explicitly describe being left hanging or ignored after service issues.
• SERIOUS: Pattern of damage during service (chipped bathtubs, scratched fixtures, improper installations) with owner refusing to return calls or address damage claims.
• SERIOUS: Multiple reports of overcharging—customers charged significantly more than quoted estimates (e.g., $207 for no service, $613 vs $400 estimate, $389 vs $180-200 estimate, $1600 water heater installation with refusal to correct).
• SERIOUS: Inconsistent quality and accountability—same company receives both 5-star reviews praising exceptional service and 1-star reviews describing incompetence, with no clear pattern by technician or time period.
• MODERATE: Several reviews from 2022-2024 describe poor emergency response and non-responsiveness, suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• MODERATE: Blank/minimal reviews (approximately 15 reviews with no text or single-word text) reduce data quality but do not appear to be fake—likely system artifacts.
• MODERATE: Recency concern—while recent reviews (2024-2025) show both strong positives and serious negatives, the concentration of severe complaints in 2020-2024 suggests deterioration in service consistency.
• LIMITED: One review explicitly states company has moved to Arizona (2015), creating uncertainty about whether all reviews reference the same operating entity.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. The company exhibits a stark bimodal distribution: approximately 65% of reviews are highly positive (5-star with specific praise), while approximately 20% are severely negative (1-star with serious allegations of fraud, non-responsiveness, and damage). The remaining 15% are mixed or neutral. The HIGH confidence reflects substantial mention counts across all dimensions, but the extreme variance in customer experience—particularly the documented pattern of non-responsiveness to damage claims and warranty issues—suggests this company is unreliable for critical or time-sensitive work. Customers should verify current ownership/location and request references for similar project types before engaging.