Find Nearby Plumbers In Murfreesboro, Tennessee

All three reviews are positive and mention responsiveness, fair pricing, and reliability, which supports moderate confidence in professionalism and pricing dimensions. One reviewer noted the contractor arrived early and addressed additional problems beyond the original scope, which is a meaningful signal for both project completion and experience. However, the total review count is very low at only 3 reviews, and most descriptions are brief and somewhat generic, limiting the depth of evidence available. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions to reflect the thin evidence base. Reviews are from 2022, making them over two years old, which slightly reduces their recency weight.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — WW Score reliability is low and should be treated with caution.
• All reviews are 5-star with brief, generic praise and limited specific detail, which raises a mild concern about review depth and potential selection bias.
• All reviews are dated 2022 or earlier — no reviews from the past 12 months are present, reducing recency confidence.
• Review language is not identical but is similarly vague across all three entries; not flagged as fake but noted as lacking specificity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than two years, with limited detail — it should be treated as a preliminary indicator only and not a reliable measure of current contractor performance.

R&S Plumbing has a genuinely mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints: a physical altercation with a customer, staff entering a home without masks during COVID, a billing agent being rude to a customer's wife, repeated no-shows after a failed repair, and two separate driving complaints about reckless behavior in a company van. While many customers praise punctuality and courtesy, these negative incidents are severe enough to substantially reduce the professionalism score. Pricing is similarly split — several reviewers praise reasonable and competitive rates, while others report price gouging (charging $225 for a 5-minute fix), an astronomical $2,500 quote, and a $200 diagnostic fee that competitors would have included in the total. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: there is a documented case of a failed repair followed by three consecutive no-shows, a tub valve job that left the customer without a shower, and a toilet unclog that failed within three days — offset by many reviews praising complete and timely work. Experience scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable, skilled technicians who solved complex problems, but undermined by at least two cases where the plumber appeared to lack the tools or skill to complete the job properly.

• Two reviews (dated 2017-06-11 and 2016-06-14) appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same detailed negative billing complaint — this may indicate a copy-paste error or a duplicate submission, and was counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews (dated 2020-06-10 and 2020-02-14) are nearly identical in content describing the same large list of repairs — likely the same customer submitting twice or a duplicate; treated as one incident for scoring.
• Two separate reviews (2023-03-29 and 2022-11-15) describe reckless driving by a company van driver — these are consistent and credible, and reflect on company culture and professionalism.
• The one-sentence and blank reviews ('great', 'made short work of it', and the empty 5-star review) provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Most reviews with usable data are older than 12 months (many from 2011–2019), with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2024). Recency-weighted confidence in current performance is limited.
• The most recent substantive negative reviews (driving complaints in 2022–2023) and the most recent positive reviews (2024) are both low in volume, making current performance difficult to assess with confidence.

This WW Score is based on a reasonable volume of reviews (33 total, 31 usable), but reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews, two likely duplicate submissions, and a stark polarization between highly positive and highly negative experiences that suggests inconsistent service quality depending on the technician or situation encountered.

Dad's Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise responsiveness, courteous technicians, and fair pricing — with multiple customers becoming repeat clients. However, a significant cluster of detailed negative reviews describes serious failures: abandoned jobs, failed inspections, unsupervised apprentices doing licensed work, unprepared technicians, no-shows, poor communication, and property damage left unresolved. The professionalism score is dragged down by repeated complaints about late arrivals without communication, rude callbacks, and staff showing up unprepared. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and at least one case of a snake left in a drain causing ongoing damage. Pricing received mixed signals — several reviewers praised affordability while others felt overcharged with hidden or disputed fees. The experience dimension reflects genuine skill in some cases but serious technical failures in others, including multiple failed inspections and incorrect installations.

• Several 5-star reviews contain no text or only a rating — these were excluded from dimension scoring and inflate the raw star average without providing usable evidence.
• A small number of generic 5-star reviews use vague superlatives with no specific details (e.g., 'Amazing, quality, reputable, trustworthy'), which may indicate low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• One negative reviewer explicitly alleges that some 5-star reviews were left by paid employees of the company — this cannot be verified but warrants caution.
• Multiple serious negative reviews are highly detailed and specific (failed inspections, property damage, lien filing, abandoned jobs), lending them strong credibility and significant downward weight.
• Review dates span from 2014 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both strong positives and at least one serious negative (snake left in drain, July 2024), suggesting quality inconsistency persists to the present day.
• The business appears to operate under multiple owner/technician names (Steve, Todd, Jacob, Keno, Anthony, Drake, Dave, Paul), which may indicate inconsistent service quality depending on which technician is dispatched.
• At least one review references the company going out of business, though other reviews post-date this claim — this may refer to a different entity or a temporary closure and should be investigated.

This WW Score is based on 68 reviews spanning 10 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the wide variance between glowing and severely negative reviews suggests highly inconsistent service quality, and prospective customers should weigh the detailed negative reviews heavily before hiring.

Goodwin Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning multiple years. While positive reviews (2019, 2021, 2016) praise professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, recent reviews (2023, 2024) reveal serious concerns: unresponsiveness, scheduling failures, incomplete work, property damage denial, billing discrepancies, and ethical lapses. The company appears to have experienced a notable decline in service quality and customer care. Professionalism scores are dragged down by communication failures and lack of accountability, while pricing is undermined by billing disputes and hidden charges. Project completion suffers from incomplete work and follow-up failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2023-2024) are significantly more negative than older reviews (2016-2021), suggesting a deterioration in service quality over time.
• ETHICAL RED FLAGS: Multiple allegations of dishonesty including denial of property damage, misrepresentation of customer conversations to office staff, and billing discrepancies that company attributes to 'mistakes.'
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recent reviews cite repeated non-callbacks, scheduling confusion, and poor responsiveness—a stark contrast to earlier positive reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Evidence of jobs left unfinished (drywall not patched, debris not cleaned) with company refusing responsibility.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Customers report being charged significantly more than quoted with company providing inconsistent explanations.

This score should be treated with caution due to the stark divergence between older and recent reviews; the WW Score reflects an average that masks a clear downward trend, and potential customers should heavily weight the 2023-2024 reviews as more representative of current service quality.

Benchmark Plumbing has a clearly divided reputation. Recent reviews from 2024 are consistently positive, praising professionalism, punctuality, and willingness to go above and beyond on jobs. However, multiple older reviews — some quite detailed — describe serious issues including poor workmanship, rude office staff, failure to take responsibility for errors, and overcharging on parts. The professionalism score is significantly dragged down by recurring complaints about a specific office staff member (Jill) and aggressive behavior attributed to company personnel, as well as one non-service driving incident. Project completion is penalized by at least two credible accounts of defective work and one account of a plumber arriving outside the agreed window without notice. Pricing receives a moderate score because while some customers found the pricing fair or even savings-generating, at least one detailed review cited 20–30% markups over supplier prices.

• RECENCY BIAS RISK: Five of the six most positive reviews are clustered within a 3-day window (August 26–28, 2024), which is statistically unusual and may suggest a coordinated review push. Language across these reviews is varied enough to avoid outright fake-review flagging, but the clustering warrants caution.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Several of the most detailed and credible negative reviews date from 2011–2020, meaning they are more than 3 years old. Business quality may have improved, but these accounts describe systemic issues (poor workmanship, blame-shifting, rude staff) that cannot be dismissed.
• TWO REVIEWS ARE NOT ABOUT PLUMBING SERVICES: One review (2023) describes aggressive driving behavior by company vehicle occupants, and one (2018) describes a rude in-office job application experience. Neither reflects direct service quality but both were counted toward professionalism as they reflect on company culture and staff conduct.
• SPLIT REPUTATION PATTERN: There is a stark divide between 5-star recent reviews and 1–2 star older reviews with no middle-ground recent feedback, which makes it difficult to assess current true performance with high confidence.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is sufficient for calculation, but the suspicious clustering of recent 5-star reviews, the age of the most detailed negative reviews, and the absence of any recent critical feedback create meaningful uncertainty about the contractor's current true performance level.

This contractor shows strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for communication, organization, and courteous behavior. However, a severe 1-star review from 2021 describing complete project failure—pipes clogged immediately after service with no callback response—significantly undermines confidence in project completion and follow-through. The two positive reviews (2024 and 2020) praise workmanship and communication, but the catastrophic failure documented in the middle review suggests inconsistent execution and poor accountability. The WW Score of 68.3 reflects this critical reliability gap despite professional demeanor.

• CRITICAL: One review (2021-05-03) describes severe project failure with no callback response, suggesting accountability issues. This directly contradicts the positive reviews and raises questions about consistency.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are older than 1 year (2020 and 2021). Only one recent review (2024) provides current performance data.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total—insufficient for high-confidence scoring. Results should be treated as preliminary.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Extreme polarity (5-star, 1-star, 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests either highly variable service quality or potential data inconsistency.

This score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews), significant time gaps, and one catastrophic failure that contradicts positive feedback—suggesting either inconsistent service delivery or data quality issues that require additional recent reviews to validate.