Find Nearby Plumbers In Bridgeport, Connecticut

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, with explicit mentions of promptness, responsiveness, and a professional demeanor, giving that dimension the most reliable signal. Project completion is implied through repeat usage and general satisfaction but is not described in specific detail, warranting a conservative score. Experience is mentioned once explicitly in terms of field knowledge, and repeat patronage over multiple years provides mild corroborating evidence. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. Overall, the scores are directionally positive but must be treated with caution given the very small review set and the age of all reviews.

• All three reviews are significantly outdated: the most recent is from December 2012, and the oldest is from February 2006. None fall within the past 12 months, and none fall within the past decade. These reviews should be weighted very lightly as they may not reflect current service quality.
• Review set is extremely small (only 3 reviews), which severely limits statistical reliability. The WW Score should be treated as indicative only.
• No pricing information is available in any review. The pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• While all reviews are positive, the language is generic and lacks specific project details (e.g., type of work, scope, outcomes). This limits the depth of scoring confidence across all dimensions.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the brevity and generality of the reviews make it difficult to distinguish authentic detailed feedback from surface-level praise.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are between 11 and 18 years old, a complete absence of pricing data, and a lack of specific project detail that would allow confident scoring across dimensions.

Glen/Glenn receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly praised attribute — reviewers highlight responsiveness, honesty, respectfulness, and communication. Pricing is noted favorably in three reviews, including a specific mention of no emergency service charges and reasonable rates, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is referenced in several reviews through language like 'did not stop until everything was perfect' and 'always fix our issues,' though specifics on timeliness or complex job follow-through are limited. Experience and workmanship are mentioned positively but without deep technical detail, keeping that score conservative. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of most reviews, the majority of which are more than two years old.

• Only 6 total reviews — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability.
• Most reviews are significantly older than 12 months; the most recent is from January 2022 and the oldest from 2016. Recency weighting reduces confidence in current performance.
• Two different names appear across reviews ('Glen/Glenn' and 'Frank'), which may indicate multiple technicians or a data inconsistency worth noting.
• Several reviews use highly enthusiastic but vague language ('restored my faith in humanity,' 'He is the Man') with limited operational specifics — this is a mild flag for generic praise, though not conclusive evidence of fake reviews.
• No negative reviews present in the dataset — while this could reflect genuine quality, it may also reflect a curated or incomplete review set.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review count of 6, the predominantly dated nature of the reviews (most over 2 years old), and the absence of any critical feedback to balance the assessment.

Two detailed, positive reviews paint a strong picture of an honest, skilled, and fairly priced plumbing company, with specific praise for punctuality, transparency, technical problem-solving, and tidy workmanship. The first reviewer highlights repeat use across multiple job types, reinforcing consistency. The second reviewer provides a compelling account of the technician forgoing a lucrative job to deliver an honest, simple fix — a strong indicator of integrity and competence. However, the third review documents a clear failure in responsiveness: a callback was promised and never delivered, which directly impacts professionalism and project completion scores. This negative data point meaningfully tempers what would otherwise be a very high score.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for high-stakes decisions.
• The two positive reviews are detailed and specific with named technicians and described scenarios, reducing fake review concern. No significant fake review patterns detected.
• Review dates span 2020–2022 — all reviews are older than 12 months from a typical 2024–2025 evaluation date. No recent data is available to confirm current service quality.
• The 1-star review explicitly describes a broken callback promise from the receptionist/estimator, indicating a potential systemic communication gap that is not reflected in the positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 2020–2022, making it LOW reliability — the score directionally suggests a capable and honest company but cannot be trusted as a definitive quality indicator without more recent and voluminous review data.

Only three reviews exist, two of which contain usable detail. The positive reviews highlight honesty in diagnosis, reasonable pricing, prompt emergency response, and satisfactory work quality. One review is a bare 1-star rating from 2010 with no explanatory text, which drags scores down conservatively but cannot be analyzed for specific dimension failures. All reviews are between 15 and 17 years old, making them significantly outdated and of very limited relevance to current performance. Given the age of the data and the minimal review count, all scores are treated conservatively.

• ALL reviews are older than 12 years (dates range from 2007 to 2010). These scores reflect no recent performance data and should be treated with extreme caution.
• One 1-star review ('Not good!') provides no detail — it cannot be attributed to any specific dimension but signals a negative experience that cannot be ignored or dismissed.
• Only 3 total reviews exist. The WW Score is at the absolute minimum threshold for calculation and carries very low reliability.
• Review dates suggest this contractor may no longer be active or may have significantly changed in quality since these reviews were written.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 15 years old, making it highly unreliable as an indicator of current contractor quality — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Outstanding Plumbing receives genuinely strong praise for professionalism, courteous staff, and technical knowledge across many reviews, with multiple customers citing specific technicians by name and describing thorough, competent work. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: multiple independent reviewers across different years describe charges they considered grossly excessive — including $600 for a sump pump cover, $1,600 for four hours of minor work, and $600 to cap a water line — dragging the pricing dimension significantly below average. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but there are notable failures including an improperly installed gas unit causing carbon monoxide concerns, abandoned estimates with no follow-up, and poor administrative coordination. The mixed record across a substantial review base produces a moderate overall WW Score that reflects a contractor with real skill but inconsistent pricing integrity and occasional serious service failures.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2017, 2018, 2021, 2024) explicitly describe pricing as exorbitant or gouged. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2024) alleges an improperly installed gas conversion unit resulted in unsafe carbon monoxide exposure over 7 years with repeated failed service calls — this is a serious workmanship and liability flag.
• ABANDONED ESTIMATES: Two separate reviewers (2023) report paying a $50 estimate fee and then receiving no follow-up quote or response, suggesting a pattern of poor follow-through on pre-sale commitments.
• ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURES: One reviewer (2016) describes a complete breakdown in scheduling coordination — no record of their address or phone number on file — suggesting systemic office management issues at that time.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews (2023–2025) include pricing complaints and an abandoned estimate, suggesting pricing and follow-through issues have not been resolved over time.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated exactly 2016-06-11 and 2018-06-11 with generic praise and no specific job details may include solicited or incentivized reviews. Language in several of these is unusually promotional (e.g., Realtor and business-owner reviews with no specific job described). Confidence is maintained at HIGH due to volume but this pattern is noted.
• PRICE NEGOTIATION FLAG: One reviewer (2018) notes the company attempted to negotiate price when challenged, which the reviewer interpreted as confirmation the original quote was inflated.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with usable content spanning 2014–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence due to review volume, but consumers should weight the pricing dimension heavily as a risk factor given its consistent negative pattern across multiple independent reviewers over many years.

Ray the Plumber scores reasonably well on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviews praising courteous, punctual, and knowledgeable technicians by name — Connor, Alex, Rob, Tim, Mike, Tom, and others are repeatedly cited for their friendly demeanor, clear explanations, and clean work habits. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: an exceptionally high volume of reviews — spanning the full date range from 2009 to 2025 — explicitly describe prices as outrageous, double or triple competitors, and in several cases customers felt taken advantage of in emergency situations. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished in a single visit, but there are notable failures including a flooded basement left unresolved over a weekend, a toilet left running after repair, a pipe incorrectly sized requiring a return visit, and at least two cases where the root cause was misdiagnosed entirely, costing customers thousands of dollars unnecessarily. The combination of strong field technician performance and persistently criticized pricing creates a split profile: the company delivers competent work but at a cost that many customers consider exploitative, particularly for vulnerable or emergency customers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2025-06-04 and 2025-06-02 are word-for-word identical, describing the same oil burner/boiler incident. This appears to be the same review submitted twice on different dates. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-01-26 09:10:41 and 2024-01-26 00:00:00 are word-for-word identical, describing the same hot water heater and shower fixture complaint. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-23, 2025-05-30, 2025-04-07, 2025-03-08, 2025-02-06, and 2025-01-07 contain multiple blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings and no content. These provide no usable data and inflate the apparent star average without substantive feedback.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2009 to June 2025. The pricing complaints are consistent and persistent across the entire date range — this is not an isolated or historical issue. Pricing criticism appears in recent 2024 and 2025 reviews as well as older ones, suggesting no improvement over time.
• PRICING CONCERN — SYSTEMIC: An unusually high proportion of negative reviews (estimated 30+ reviews) cite pricing as exploitative, with multiple reviewers stating they were charged 2x to 3x competitor rates for identical work. Several reviewers explicitly state they felt taken advantage of during emergencies. This is a structural business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• MISDIAGNOSIS CONCERN: At least three reviews describe significant financial harm caused by failure to properly diagnose the root cause before performing expensive work — including a $2,000 tank replacement that was rendered worthless when the boiler coil was found to be the actual problem, a misdiagnosed slab leak, and a toilet repair that failed to identify the actual blockage.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from office staff and from Ray himself when complaints were raised, including one review citing Ray yelling at a customer and another describing a customer service rep defending the owner calling a customer a 'jerk' on Yelp.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH CONCERN: Several reviews describe disputes over warranty coverage, with the company allegedly narrowing warranty terms after the fact or refusing to honor stated guarantees.
• SERVICE FEE CONCERN: Numerous reviews spanning 2010 to 2025 describe the dispatch/estimate fee ($40 to $75 over the years) as a pressure tactic that discourages customers from seeking competing quotes. One reviewer alleges they were promised a refund of this fee as part of a review-removal request, which was never honored.

This WW Score is based on a very large and diverse review dataset spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the persistent and well-documented pricing complaints, the presence of duplicate and blank reviews, and evidence of at least some misdiagnosis incidents — the professionalism and experience scores reflect genuine technician quality, while the pricing score of 38 reflects a real and recurring pattern of customer dissatisfaction that prospective customers should weigh heavily.