Find Nearby Plumbers In Alexandria, Virginia

Perfect Plumbing has a large and long review history showing genuinely strong technician-level professionalism — many reviewers praise individual techs (Eli, Bob, Cam, Joel, James) as friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. However, the record is significantly undermined by a persistent and recurring pattern of serious failures: multiple reviews across different years describe missed appointments, no-shows, unreturned calls, and jobs left unfinished for months. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling the service expensive or feeling overcharged, and at least two reviews describing what appear to be unnecessary upselling or outright misdiagnosis. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with credible accounts of abandoned work, failed inspections never remedied, and warranty disputes going back years. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more positive, suggesting possible operational improvement, but older negative reviews document serious systemic issues that cannot be ignored.

• 40 of 125 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be scored and inflate the apparent review count without providing usable evidence. This pattern may indicate review padding.
• Several reviews use 'unknown' as the review text, which provides no usable data and may indicate imported or placeholder reviews.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-03-11 and 2025-05-10 appear to have been submitted in batches with identical dates, which may indicate coordinated review submission rather than organic customer feedback.
• Multiple serious negative reviews describe abandoned jobs, unfinished work lasting months, and an owner (Josh/Frank) who repeatedly failed to return calls or complete contracted work — these are credible, detailed, and span multiple years (2013, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2024).
• At least two reviews describe potential misdiagnosis or unnecessary upselling (sump pump repair quoted at $10,000 that cost $200 elsewhere; water heater reset misdiagnosed as needing full replacement at $895 labor).
• One review describes a deeply serious allegation: a job paid in full ($14,000) that was abandoned, leaving an elderly woman's yard in a dangerous state. This was reported to the BBB and Iowa Plumbers Board of Licensure.
• Review dates span from 2006 to 2025 — nearly 20 years. Older reviews (pre-2020) are given reduced weight per recency rules, but the negative patterns they document are consistent with more recent negative reviews, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.
• The name of the owner appears inconsistently across reviews as both 'Frank' and 'Josh', which may indicate this profile aggregates reviews for more than one business entity or location, reducing score reliability.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews with usable text, but the score itself should be treated with caution given the serious and recurring nature of the negative reviews, the large number of blank reviews that may artificially inflate ratings, and the possibility that this profile aggregates multiple business entities operating under the same name.

Able Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. On the positive side, a substantial majority of reviewers praise responsiveness, same-day availability, polite technicians, and fair pricing — with named plumbers like Rob, Nelson, Danilo, and Dwayne frequently cited for skill and professionalism. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across multiple years and involving different customers — describe serious recurring issues: poor workmanship requiring callbacks, failure to honor guarantees, pricing disputes with no transparency, and office staff who are dismissive or unresponsive. Project completion is the most contested dimension, with multiple reviews describing jobs that leaked after completion, were abandoned, or were never followed up on. Pricing scores are dragged down by several credible accounts of inflated labor charges, undisclosed hourly rates, and parts marked up well above retail — though many other customers found pricing fair or even better than competitors.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Called for a fix to a leak behind the wall of my upstairs bathroom. Rob (owner) came out...' appears twice with different dates (2024-06-06 and 2023-11-11) and identical text. This is a likely duplicate and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'I called Able in off hours and left a message...' (garbage disposal / Sa's Plumbing) appears twice with different dates (2023-06-07 and 2023-01-19) and near-identical text. Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Nope. I was horrified to find an Able plumber without a mask...' appears twice with different dates (2021-06-07 and 2020-10-10). Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Six reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, or single-word responses ('Great', 'The absolute best.'). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2016–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range, indicating persistent rather than isolated issues. No strong recency trend toward improvement or decline is clearly evident.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same failure modes — jobs that leaked after completion, guarantees not honored, and office staff refusing to engage with complaints. This consistency across unrelated reviewers increases the credibility of these negative accounts.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Several credible negative reviews describe being charged without upfront quotes, parts marked up significantly above retail, and hourly rates never disclosed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2013-04-16, 1-star) references a different listing address and contains no substantive content. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring and credible negative patterns around billing transparency, guarantee enforcement, and project follow-through alongside the genuine praise for responsiveness and technician skill.

TMC Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 9 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 7 mentions highlighting diagnostic skill, problem-solving ability, and knowledge. Project completion is solid with 8 mentions confirming jobs finished thoroughly and on time. Pricing receives a more conservative score of 72 based on 6 mentions—while most reviews praise reasonable rates and cost-saving solutions, one detailed 2020 complaint alleges a significantly underquoted estimate ($3,880 vs. $9,000 actual), which substantially impacts confidence in pricing fairness. Most reviews are older than 12 months, limiting recency validation.

• One 1-star review from 2020 alleges deliberate underquoting and dishonesty regarding pricing estimates—this is a serious allegation that directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative and warrants caution
• Two reviews contain minimal or no substantive content ('unknown' and '.'), reducing usable data quality
• Majority of reviews (10 of 13) are older than 12 months (pre-2023), with only 1 review from 2024 and 1 from 2023; recent performance cannot be fully validated
• Possible name inconsistency: reviews reference both 'Michael Hernandez' and 'Tim/Timothy Corbett' as owners/primary technicians—unclear if same company or different entities

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution: while 11 of 12 usable reviews are highly positive and consistent, the single detailed pricing fraud allegation from 2020, combined with predominantly older reviews and limited recent validation, prevents HIGH confidence. The pricing dimension is particularly uncertain and may not reflect current practices.

Aldo and NOVA Plumbing receive strong praise across professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, with multiple reviewers highlighting same-day service, clear communication, and expert diagnosis of complex sewer issues. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews as reasonable and cost-effective, supporting a solid but moderately-evidenced pricing score. However, one significant negative review from 2023 — the most recent review in the dataset — describes a plumber breaking an internal pipe during a job and refusing financial responsibility, which materially drags down the project completion score and introduces a serious quality concern. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2017–2021, meaning the contractor's recent track record is represented by only one review, and it is negative.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (August 2023) is the only 1-star review and describes property damage caused during service with no financial accountability taken — this is a significant red flag that carries elevated weight given its recency.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Seven of nine reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with two from 2017. The score is heavily influenced by older data and may not reflect current service quality.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific details (names, job types, locations, scenarios) and vary in length and tone, suggesting authenticity.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 9 total reviews. While above the minimum threshold of 3, the dataset is small and a single negative review has outsized impact on reliability.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review sample, a concentration of older reviews, and a recent negative review describing property damage — consumers should treat this score as a starting point and seek more current references before hiring.

High Tide Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with most reviews praising punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship. However, the score is tempered by two significant negative reviews: one alleging collusion in overcharging and lack of pricing transparency (2022), and another documenting a failure to call ahead as promised, resulting in a missed appointment (2019). Pricing feedback is mixed—most reviews cite reasonable/fair rates, but the 2022 review raises serious concerns about equipment cost justification. The majority of positive reviews are older (2017–2020), with limited recent data.

• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: Review dated 2021-11-29 appears to plagiarize the opening phrase ('Literally a life saver and amazing work') from the 2020-09-12 review, then references 'the previous reviewer.' This suggests either fabrication or manipulation of review content.
• SERIOUS PRICING ALLEGATION: 2022 review explicitly accuses contractor of collusion in overcharging and lack of itemization transparency. This directly contradicts the 'fair pricing' narrative in other reviews and warrants investigation.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURE: 2019 review documents clear breach of agreed communication protocol (promised to call before arrival, did not), resulting in missed appointment and customer having to reschedule. This is a documented failure in responsiveness and reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 4+ years old (2017–2020). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and 2019 provide recent data, and both are negative or mixed. Recent trend is unclear but potentially concerning.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 12 reviews total. Confidence in overall score is moderate due to limited data volume and presence of conflicting signals.

This score should be treated with caution. While the majority of reviews are positive and detailed, the presence of a recent serious pricing allegation (2022), a documented communication failure (2019), a suspected fake review (2021), and the age of most positive reviews (pre-2021) create significant uncertainty. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects the mixed signals; it is not a strong endorsement and warrants direct verification of pricing practices and recent service quality before engagement.

Hector demonstrates strong technical skills and reasonable pricing, with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship and fair rates. However, professionalism is a significant weakness, with multiple documented instances of no-shows, delays, and poor communication (2022, 2019 reviews). Project completion is mixed—while many jobs are finished well, there are concerns about scope clarity and follow-through on defects (reversed plumbing, unwillingness to fix mistakes without additional cost). The WW Score of 76.8 reflects solid experience and pricing offset by reliability and communication issues that undermine customer trust.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2018–2021 (3–6 years old). The two most recent reviews (2022) are both 1-star ratings citing no-shows and poor communication, suggesting potential service degradation.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Two explicit no-show/cancellation incidents documented (2022-03-29 and 2019-07-12), both rated 1-star. Pattern suggests chronic scheduling/reliability issues.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: 2022 review documents reversed hot/cold plumbing and contractor's refusal to fix defect without additional payment—indicates either poor workmanship or poor scope management.
• SCOPE CLARITY ISSUE: 2020 review notes customer must 'manage expectations' and be clear about scope, suggesting contractor may not fully scope work upfront.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2018–2021 show suspiciously similar language ('highly recommend,' 'great job,' 'reasonable price,' 'professional') with minimal specific detail in some cases. However, detail level varies enough to avoid full fake review classification.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While technical skills appear solid (HIGH confidence), the recent deterioration in professionalism and the 2022 no-show incidents suggest the contractor's current reliability may be lower than the overall score indicates. Scores based on older reviews (2018–2021) may not reflect present-day service quality. Prospective customers should prioritize recent reviews and confirm scheduling/communication protocols before hiring.