Find Nearby Plumbers In Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, describing James as friendly, knowledgeable, and persistent — including one detailed account of a difficult and unpleasant job he saw through to completion. Project completion scores well because all three reviews confirm the work was finished successfully, including a same-day gas line run and a stubborn RV black water tank clog. Experience is supported by references to technical knowledge and problem-solving on non-standard jobs, though the sample size is small. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall WW Score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool of only three reviews, two of which are over three years old.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation; results should be treated with caution.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2019 and 2020, making them 4–5 years old. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. Recency is poor.
• No pricing information is available in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored at all.
• Reviews appear genuine with specific details, varied language, and personal context — no fake review patterns detected.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews, a predominantly outdated review set, and a missing Pricing dimension — prospective customers should seek additional references before making a hiring decision.

MetroTech receives strong praise across four positive reviews for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers highlighting that technicians arrived on time or early and communicated well throughout the process. However, one negative review from 2019 significantly tempers the professionalism and pricing scores, describing a no-call no-show, a failure to communicate findings, and an opaque $200 service call fee that was not disclosed upfront. Pricing is a concern area: while one reviewer explicitly praised the absence of upselling, the negative review describes a hidden or surprise charge, resulting in a conservative pricing score. Project completion scores moderately well, as most reviewers confirm work was completed, though the negative review represents a case where the job was never properly started or communicated. The overall picture is cautiously positive but limited by the small review pool and one substantive complaint.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.
• Four of the five positive reviews are from 2016–2018, making them 6–9 years old. The most recent review (2019) is the negative one, which may indicate a decline in service quality over time.
• Recency concern: No reviews from the past 5+ years. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• The four positive reviews share some generic praise patterns (punctual, friendly, professional) but do include specific names and details, reducing — but not eliminating — concern about authenticity.
• The negative review raises a specific concern about undisclosed service call fees, which is a transparency and pricing red flag.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), the age of the data (most reviews are 6–9 years old), and the presence of one substantive negative review that directly contradicts the positive pattern seen in older reviews.

Real McCoy's Plumbing receives strong praise for honest pricing, quality workmanship, and going above and beyond on jobs — including one reviewer noting the plumber identified and fixed a serious electrical safety hazard unprompted. However, a significant and detailed negative review raises a serious concern about responsiveness and communication, describing over two weeks of unanswered calls and texts. This single but highly specific complaint meaningfully drags down the professionalism score, as communication and responsiveness are core components of that dimension. The positive reviews are older (2014–2017) and the sample size is very small, limiting confidence across all dimensions. Pricing feedback is favorable but based on only two mentions, making that score conservative.

• All reviews are older than 6 years (2014–2017) — no recent data available. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews total), which severely limits the reliability of all dimension scores.
• One detailed 1-star review documents a pattern of non-responsiveness over a 2+ week period with specific dates and interactions — this is credible and specific, not a vague complaint, and carries significant weight.
• The negative reviewer references complaints about non-responsiveness found on multiple other platforms, suggesting this may be a recurring issue rather than an isolated incident.
• Three of four reviews are 5-star with generally positive language. While not conclusively fake, the small sample and older dates mean these cannot be fully weighted against the detailed negative account.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to only 4 reviews, all dated 2014–2017, a credible and detailed complaint about chronic non-responsiveness, and no recent data to confirm whether service quality has improved or declined.

Braun Plumbing receives mixed signals across the three reviews analyzed. Professionalism is generally positive, with two reviewers praising communication, personability, and responsiveness — including being squeezed in before a major snowstorm — though no negative professionalism comments were raised. Pricing is the most contested dimension: one reviewer was explicitly upset about a $400+ toilet installation charge (labor only), while the other two praised pricing as fair or great, resulting in a conservative middle-ground score. Project completion and experience are supported by only two reviews each, with the detailed 2021 review demonstrating strong diagnostic and technical skill, but the small sample size limits confidence significantly. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with apparent capability but a pricing inconsistency that warrants caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• One review (2021-02-26) is over 3 years old and carries reduced recency weight; the most recent usable positive review is from September 2023.
• The 5-star review from 2023-09-07 is vague and generic with no specific job details, which is a mild fake review indicator — confidence in that review's data is reduced.
• Pricing signals are directly contradictory across reviews, suggesting inconsistent pricing practices or job-type variability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with mixed specificity and a wide date range, making it LOW reliability — do not treat this score as representative of consistent contractor performance without gathering significantly more review data.

Roto-Rooter Redding shows a deeply split profile: many customers praise individual technicians (David, Chris, Gerrhett, Austin, Jeremiah) for being knowledgeable, fast, and professional, while a significant minority report serious professionalism failures — including rude phone staff, a technician who appeared impaired, and the owner allegedly cursing out a customer. Pricing is a recurring concern, with multiple reviewers citing unexplained charges, no upfront disclosure, used parts billed at full price, and rates described as far above competitors; a handful of reviews do praise fair or reasonable pricing, preventing a lower score. Project completion is mixed: most jobs appear to get done, but there are notable instances of delayed scheduling, missed appointment windows, incomplete work, and one job that took a week longer than promised. Technical skill and experience scores are the strongest dimension, with many reviewers noting quick diagnosis, effective problem-solving, and going beyond the immediate task — though one technician was accused of cutting corners and another of misdiagnosing a location.

• 10 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Reviews dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-06-10 show an unusual clustering of multiple reviews on the exact same date, which may indicate batch-imported or aggregated reviews rather than organic submissions. Treat these with caution.
• Two reviews dated 2024-09-25 appear to be near-identical duplicates of the same detailed realtor complaint, submitted within hours of each other. Only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• One review (2023-06-10, 1-star) contains no text. One review (2023-06-10, 5-star) references 'A exceptional pastor' which appears to be a misplaced review unrelated to plumbing services and was excluded.
• Several older reviews (pre-2018) reference locations or context inconsistent with Redding, CA (e.g., Clarksville, TN; Silicon Valley). These may be reviews for a different Roto-Rooter franchise and could be inflating or distorting the dataset.
• The owner (Ray) is praised extensively in older reviews but is directly named in multiple negative reviews for rude and aggressive behavior, including allegedly cursing out a customer. This is a significant red flag for ownership-level conduct.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2017–2024. Reviews older than 2018 should be weighted less heavily as they may not reflect current business practices.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical weight, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by duplicate reviews, blank reviews, potentially misattributed franchise reviews, and a stark internal contradiction between praised technicians and condemned ownership/office conduct.

Progressive Plumbing and its associated entities receive broadly positive marks for professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising named technicians such as Daniel, Victor, Marcus, Justin, and Roberto for being courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, arbitrary, or deceptive — including instances of verbal quotes being exceeded, refusal to itemize bills, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed promptly and well, there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, callbacks that were never honored, and at least one case of a job left incomplete with damage caused. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range significantly suppresses the overall score.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews reference 'San Bruno Plumbing' as the company name, while the majority reference 'Progressive Plumbing' or 'Progressive Service Company.' These may be distinct businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together, which would make the composite score unreliable.
• FAKE OR PADDING REVIEW CONCERN: At least 30+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent rating volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review for Marcus ('came on time in fact earlier than expected... cost was fair, lower than expected') appears verbatim on both 2025-05-19 and 2025-05-16. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. A significant portion of negative pricing and project completion reviews date from 2017–2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated — they appear across many years, many technicians, and many job types (water heaters, toilet repairs, faucet installs, drain clearing). This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as outliers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians performing unauthorized work, billing tenants without owner approval, leaving job sites in disarray, being rude or dismissive, and in one case potentially misusing a credit card. These are serious conduct flags.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no follow-up communication was made. This is a recurring project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing complaints, suspected entity mixing between 'Progressive Plumbing' and 'San Bruno Plumbing,' a high volume of blank filler reviews, and recurring patterns of no-shows and incomplete work that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.