Find Nearby Plumbers In Richmond, Virginia

Only two of the three reviews contain usable service feedback. Both usable reviews describe Robert as prompt and professional, and one explicitly notes fair pricing. Work completed includes power washing, deck staining, dryer vent cleaning, and pest screen installation, suggesting a reasonable breadth of handyman capability. However, with only two data points and all reviews being more than two years old (the most recent usable review is from August 2022), confidence in this score is very low. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions to reflect the thin evidence base.

• Only 2 of 3 reviews contain usable service data. One review is a website malware warning and contributes no service-quality information.
• All reviews are older than 2 years as of 2024. The most recent usable review is from August 2022, and the oldest is from June 2018. Recency is poor — contractor's current quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• Sample size is critically small (2 usable reviews). The WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and not representative of consistent performance.
• The non-service review (malware warning) was given a 5-star rating despite being a negative warning, which may indicate a platform rating anomaly or user error.

This WW Score is based on only 2 usable reviews, all of which are over 2 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Cyrus Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers highlighting Bryan's communication, responsiveness, same-day availability, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is also well-regarded, with one long-term commercial client noting zero callbacks over many years and another reviewer confirming a warranty return visit was honored at no charge. Experience scores are solid, supported by references to a wide range of plumbing work completed correctly across residential and commercial settings. However, pricing is a notable concern — one reviewer explicitly called the rates 'outrageous' for a basic drain snake, which meaningfully drags down the pricing dimension. The overall score is tempered by the small and largely dated review pool.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The first two reviews are word-for-word identical in content, differing only in timestamp format. One has been counted once for scoring purposes to avoid inflating mention counts.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation date. The majority of reviews are 5 to 18 years old, significantly reducing reliability of the current score.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total (5 unique), which is insufficient to establish high confidence in any dimension. Scores should be treated as directional only.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The duplicate review raises a minor flag, but the remaining reviews contain specific details and varied language, reducing concern about systematic fabrication.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the review base is very small, mostly outdated, and contains one confirmed duplicate, making it a weak signal of current service quality.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is supported by three mentions highlighting punctuality, cleanliness, and responsiveness, earning a moderate score of 82.5. Pricing received strong marks from two reviews praising fair value and competitive rates. However, project completion is significantly undermined by one explicit failure—a customer never received a callback after submitting a repair list—which directly contradicts the completion dimension. Experience is rated positively based on mentions of knowledgeability and attention to detail. The WW Score of 73.8 reflects solid professionalism and pricing but is dragged down by the critical callback failure and the age of most reviews.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2017) explicitly states no callback was received after faxing repair list—this is a direct project completion failure and suggests follow-through issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 6 reviews are from 2006–2012 (8–17 years old). Only 1 review is from 2017. This severely limits the reliability of current performance assessment.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Multiple reviews are extremely brief ('Very satisfied,' 'It went well') with no specific details, limiting evidence quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE: Only 6 total reviews analyzed; confidence in any dimension is inherently limited.

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (6 reviews), the age of most data (primarily 2006–2012), and the presence of one explicit service failure that contradicts positive claims. The WW Score of 73.8 is not reliable for current decision-making without more recent reviews.

JL Bishop demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, as evidenced by quick response times, knowledgeable staff, and quality workmanship. However, a significant pricing concern emerges from one review where the company charged $350 for camera inspection to locate a distribution box that was already accurately mapped by the customer—a service other plumbers reportedly provide at no charge. This pricing practice substantially undermines the overall score despite positive professionalism and experience ratings. The limited review sample (only 2 reviews) and age of the negative review (2019) introduce uncertainty into the final assessment.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient volume for high-confidence scoring
• Negative review is from 2019 (4+ years old); unclear if pricing practices have changed
• Significant pricing complaint regarding $350 camera charge for service competitors provide free — suggests potential value-for-money issue
• Positive review from 2023 does not address pricing, limiting ability to assess whether 2019 concern is isolated or systemic

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (2 reviews) and conflicting signals between strong professionalism/experience ratings and a serious pricing concern; additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence in this contractor's overall performance.

Two strongly positive reviews praise the company's knowledgeable staff, fair pricing, and courteous service across both plumbing and heating work, with specific technicians named and specific tasks described, lending credibility. However, a detailed 1-star review describes serious workmanship failures including reversed hot/cold plumbing, improperly bolted toilets, a crooked wall-mounted sink, and a roof leak caused by an AC installation — all of which required a third party to remediate. This negative review significantly drags down the project completion and experience scores. Pricing scores remain relatively strong given two independent reviewers explicitly praised value and transparency. The mixed record and small sample size mean this score should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is too small for high confidence in any dimension.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is October 2019, oldest is May 2017); no recent data is available to assess current service quality.
• The business appears to have operated under multiple names (Lakeside Plumbing and Heating, BRC) and has transitioned from residential to commercial-only work, meaning historical reviews may not reflect current operations at all.
• The 1-star review describes serious installation defects (reversed plumbing, unsecured toilets, crooked sink, roof leak) that required third-party remediation — this is a significant quality red flag that cannot be dismissed.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific names, tasks, and details consistent with genuine experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 4 years old, from a business that has since changed its service scope, making the score LOW reliability for assessing current contractor quality.

Eveready Service Experts demonstrates strong professionalism with courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time and communicate clearly. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns—customers consistently report overcharges, hidden fees, aggressive upselling, and quotes that are 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is mixed, with some customers reporting abandoned work and follow-up failures. Technical experience is generally solid, but is undermined by documented cases of misdiagnosis and unnecessary repairs recommended to drive sales. The stark contrast between positive service interactions and negative financial outcomes creates a company profile of professional execution paired with questionable business ethics.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 42 reviews explicitly mention pricing issues. Recurring complaints include: capacitor charged at $524 vs. competitor's $150; furnace quoted at $6,400 vs. actual cost of $300; HVAC system quoted at $15,000+ when $450 repair solved the problem; water heater quoted at $1,500 with minimal discount offered. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews document technicians recommending expensive repairs/replacements that second opinions proved unnecessary (reversing valve, heat exchanger, compressor, inducer, capacitor). Pattern suggests either incompetence or deliberate upselling.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Documented instances of salespeople arriving with technicians, high-pressure tactics during vulnerable moments (customer with COVID, emergency AC failure in 100-degree heat), and bundling unwanted services into contracts.
• ADVANTAGE PROGRAM FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Two identical reviews (one rated 1.0, one rated 3.0, same date 2022-02-19) describe the Advantage Program as predatory—$212/month for 6 months, then $14,780 termination fee for a unit that cost only $6,000-$7,000 to install. Customers describe this as 'anything but an advantage.'
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews report technicians promising callbacks that never happened, incomplete work, and lack of communication after service calls.
• APPOINTMENT NO-SHOWS: At least 4 reviews document technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments or arriving hours late without notification.
• DUPLICATE/NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Several reviews appear twice with identical or near-identical text (e.g., capacitor overcharge review appears 3 times; Advantage Program review appears twice; asbestos upsell review appears twice; reversing valve misdiagnosis appears twice). This suggests either review manipulation or systematic customer complaints being reposted.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise ('great job,' 'very professional,' 'knowledgeable'), older reviews (2018-2022) contain detailed, specific complaints about fraud and overcharging. The shift is suspicious and may indicate review filtering or fake recent reviews.
• GENERIC RECENT REVIEWS: Many 5-star reviews from June 2025 lack specificity and detail, using identical phrasing ('very thorough,' 'very professional,' 'answered all questions'). This contrasts sharply with detailed negative reviews from 2018-2022.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple complaints about office staff not returning calls, not providing promised information, and poor communication regarding scheduling and billing.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (152 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions. However, the score masks a critical bifurcation: the company excels at professional service delivery but systematically overcharges customers and employs aggressive sales tactics. The recent flood of generic 5-star reviews (June 2025) is inconsistent with the detailed fraud allegations in older reviews and warrants skepticism. Customers should expect professional technicians but should obtain independent quotes before authorizing any work and should avoid long-term service contracts or financing programs offered by this company.