Find Nearby Plumbers In Virginia Beach, Virginia

James Beasley and Beasley's Backflow Service receive consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension, with all five reviewers noting punctuality, polite communication, responsiveness, and timely scheduling — often getting customers in the very next day. Pricing is explicitly called out as competitive, reasonable, and in one case approximately half the cost of prior providers, supporting a strong but not perfect price score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing a fully turn-key process including city submission and documentation follow-through, though no negative completion experiences were mentioned to contrast against. Experience is noted in three reviews through references to system explanations, efficient execution, and problem-solving ability, yielding a solid but moderately confident score.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific, varied details that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Three of the five reviews are older than 12 months (2021 or earlier), with two reviews dating back to 2017 and 2018. Recency weighting is limited; the most recent review (November 2024) and one from 2021 carry the most relevance.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews total). Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not represent the contractor's full performance history.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 7 years, with the majority of reviews being older than 12 months, which limits reliability — the score reflects a consistently positive but narrow and partially dated data set.

RPG Construction receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly cite punctuality, cleanliness, communication, and courteous attitudes. Pricing is described as fair and competitive across four reviews, with one reviewer noting they received above-average value relative to cost. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers describing jobs finished on time, minimal disruption, and thorough follow-through even on complex multi-day projects. Experience and workmanship are affirmed by detailed accounts of technically demanding work such as sewer line replacement under concrete easements, handled with skill and problem-solving ability. The overall score is tempered by the small total review count of six, which limits statistical reliability despite the positive content.

• One review (2024-08-03) is extremely brief and generic — 'Paul with RPG Construction is a fantastic guy you can trust. We highly recommend RPG Construction for your plumbing needs!' — with no specific details about work performed, pricing, or outcomes. This review contributes minimal usable data and may be a low-effort or potentially inauthentic submission.
• One review is dated 2019 (over 5 years old), which significantly reduces its recency weight. Four of the six reviews are from 2024, which is a positive recency signal for those.
• Total review count is only 6, which is a very small sample size. While the content is largely detailed and credible, the WW Score should be interpreted with caution until more reviews are available.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for the reviews analyzed, as most contain specific, credible detail; however, the small sample size of six total reviews means the score should be treated as a promising early signal rather than a fully validated assessment.

Performance Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrive on time, communicate well, and demonstrate solid technical skill across a wide range of jobs including complex remodels, slab leaks, water heater replacements, and septic work. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describing abandoned estimates, unreturned calls, incomplete jobs, and at least one instance of a plumber leaving without resolving the issue. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call costs fair or reasonable, a notable minority — including multiple detailed complaints — describe sticker shock, book-rate pricing that felt excessive, undisclosed charges, and rates described as 350% above competitors, pulling the pricing score down significantly. The overall score reflects a genuinely capable and often excellent company that has real and recurring weaknesses in responsiveness, follow-through on estimates, and pricing transparency that prevent a higher rating.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Remember back in the good old days...' (Shayna and Nate) appears verbatim twice — once dated 2023-06-07 and once dated 2023-03-10. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Performance Plumbing is TOP NOTCH! They just completed a bathroom renovation...' appears nearly verbatim twice — once dated 2023-06-07 and once dated 2022-08-09. Counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Horrible. Could not finish the job the first day...' appears verbatim twice — once dated 2016-08-11 with a timestamp and once dated 2016-08-11 without. Counted only once.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct named technicians, owners, and office staff across what appear to be geographically separate locations (Hawaii, San Francisco, St. Louis/Missouri, Albuquerque NM, Norfolk VA, Canton OH). It is likely these reviews cover more than one business operating under the name 'Performance Plumbing.' Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may aggregate multiple distinct companies.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple 1-star reviews across different time periods cite the same failure mode: unreturned calls, missed appointments, and no-shows. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN — PRICING: Multiple detailed 1-to-3-star reviews across different years describe pricing as significantly above market rate, use of opaque 'book pricing,' and charges that were not clearly disclosed upfront. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One review (2020-11-14) alleges theft of $5,000 by an employee named Alan. This could not be verified and may relate to a different entity, but is flagged for transparency.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One review (2014-08-13) alleges fraudulent billing for hours not worked and threatening a lien. Flagged for transparency.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2003 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly 5-star with high specificity and appear credible. Older reviews (pre-2018) carry less weight in the score calculation but were used to identify recurring patterns.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single period as text with 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (200 total) spanning over two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted with caution due to the likely aggregation of multiple geographically distinct businesses under the same name, the presence of duplicate reviews, and a consistent pattern of serious negative feedback around pricing transparency and responsiveness that coexists with the predominantly positive majority.

Ali-Cor Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large and mostly consistent review base, with many customers praising punctuality, communication, and technical problem-solving by named technicians like Brandon, Jason, and Mike. Project completion scores are solid, with the majority of jobs described as finished correctly and efficiently, though one notable case of a cracked commode and a failed city inspection, plus a follow-up failure by Dillon to ever deliver a quote, pull the score down meaningfully. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers describe fair and reasonable rates, at least four reviews explicitly call out pricing as excessive or predatory — including one camera/pipe repair quote that was double a competitor's and a flange repair quoted at over three times the actual cost — which significantly suppresses the pricing score. The review set spans from 2015 to 2025, with the majority of substantive reviews falling within the past 12–24 months, lending reasonable recency weight to the overall score.

• 3 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 with no timestamps (only a date) may suggest a batch submission or solicited review campaign. Several of these are generic in phrasing ('Great team and honest', 'The best!!!', 'great to work with') with no job-specific detail, which is a mild fake review risk signal. Confidence is not severely impacted given the volume of detailed reviews, but these generic entries were weighted conservatively.
• Pricing dimension has a notable split: multiple reviewers explicitly praise fair/reasonable pricing while at least 4 reviewers explicitly describe pricing as excessive, predatory, or significantly higher than competitors. This polarization is reflected in the below-average pricing score.
• One review (2017-07-19) describes a cracked commode on installation and parts that failed city inspection — a serious workmanship failure that was factored into the experience and project completion scores.
• One review (2024-06-09, 1-star) describes a complete follow-up failure: no quote delivered after a site visit, no callback after two calls and a voicemail. This is a significant professionalism and project completion negative signal.
• Most reviews from 2015–2020 are older than 4 years. While they are generally positive and consistent with recent reviews, they carry reduced recency weight per scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on 69 reviews with usable content spanning 10 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — however, the pricing dimension reflects genuine customer disagreement and should be treated as a real risk area rather than an outlier.

Security Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication across 89 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 56 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion reliability is tempered by multiple reports of no-shows, abandoned jobs, delayed follow-ups, and unresolved callbacks, lowering that dimension to 75.5. Pricing receives moderate support (76.0) with complaints about hidden travel fees, inflated parts markups, and inconsistent transparency, though many customers praise fair rates. The company shows significant operational inconsistency—excellent service from named technicians (Omed, Ali, Matin, Jose) contrasts sharply with documented failures in scheduling, accountability, and follow-through.

• OPERATIONAL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple 1-star reviews document no-shows, abandoned jobs mid-work, and failure to return after cancellations (2020-11-30, 2020-11-10, 2019-03-05). This suggests systemic scheduling or accountability issues despite strong individual technician performance.
• HIDDEN FEES PATTERN: At least 3 detailed complaints (2022-03-09, 2021-10-04) describe undisclosed travel time charges and parts marked up 100% above retail cost. One customer explicitly noted GPS-based billing disputes and lack of transparency on time charges.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2022-06-10 grab bars review, 2019-12-02) describe lack of proactive communication when running behind schedule, missed callbacks, and unresolved follow-up commitments despite promises.
• DAMAGE LIABILITY DISPUTES: Two reviews (2024-08-13, 2019-08-03) describe property damage (broken window, stained carpet, knocked-over shelf) with company refusing responsibility or failing to follow up after admitting fault.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One long-term customer (2022-06-10) downgraded from 5-star to 3-star due to recent service degradation, suggesting possible decline in standards over time.
• RUDE STAFF INCIDENT: One 2020-10-19 review documents abusive language from scheduling staff ('shut the fuck up'), though this appears isolated.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain only 1-3 words ('Good', 'Nice job', 'unknown', '.') with 5-star ratings and no dates or minimal dates (2022-06-10, 2023-06-10 clusters). These provide no usable data and suggest possible review padding. However, the majority of reviews are detailed and credible.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most detailed negative reviews cluster in 2019-2022. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) show mixed quality—some excellent, some critical of professionalism and follow-through, suggesting ongoing operational challenges.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to large sample size (161 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but customers should be aware that Security Plumbing exhibits significant operational inconsistency: individual technicians (particularly Omed, Ali, Matin) deliver excellent service, but scheduling reliability, follow-up accountability, and transparent pricing are documented weak points that warrant direct clarification before booking.

George's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across 68 reviews. Pricing is a significant strength, with 52 reviews explicitly praising fair, transparent, and reasonable rates—often coming in under customer expectations. However, project completion shows notable weakness with 45 mentions revealing patterns of delayed callbacks, incomplete work requiring follow-up visits, and occasional no-shows. Experience and technical skill are solid (38 mentions), with customers praising problem-solving ability and quality workmanship, though some reviews document instances of inadequate diagnostics and over-specification of repairs.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2020-07-22, 2018-01-26, 2017-10-04 duplicated, 2017-11-06, 2016-09-01) report serious service failures including no-shows, incomplete work, overcharging, and alleged unprofessional behavior. One 2020 review explicitly states reviews were 'scrubbed' and a prior negative review disappeared.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Several reviews from 2014-2017 report significant project completion issues—work not finished on schedule, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple follow-up visits (e.g., 2014-02-06 water heater took 10 months to complete; 2013-01-30 sump pump installation unfinished for 5 months).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2013-2020. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are overwhelmingly positive with minimal detail, while older reviews contain more specific complaints. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain only single words ('unknown', '.', 'ab', 'Excellent', 'wonderful') or minimal text with no substantive information. These provide no actionable data.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews with identical phrasing ('They do whatever they said they gonna do', 'It went fine', 'It went great') and no specifics suggest possible review manipulation.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: One 2016 review alleges the plumber flooded an apartment, was intoxicated, used racial slurs, and refused refunds. While unverified, this is a severe claim that contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuinely strong professionalism and pricing across a large sample, the presence of credible negative reviews documenting no-shows, incomplete work, and alleged review suppression, combined with a suspicious temporal pattern (detailed complaints in older reviews, generic praise in recent ones), suggests the overall rating may be artificially inflated. Prospective customers should independently verify recent service quality and obtain written estimates before committing to work.