Find Nearby Plumbers In Hartford, Connecticut

Jet Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous service across 89 mentions. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented across 71 reviews, with Tony and his team frequently commended for problem-solving ability and knowledge. Project completion is solid at 78.5, though some reviews mention delayed callbacks and incomplete follow-through on warranty claims. Pricing receives a moderate score of 79.0 based on 42 mentions—most customers report fair and competitive rates, but a few note higher-than-expected costs or disputes over warranty coverage. The company operates across multiple service areas with some geographic service limitations that have caused customer frustration.

• Multiple reviews (at least 6) report serious communication failures: customers unable to reach the company, no callbacks despite multiple attempts, and emergency calls not returned. This is a significant reliability concern.
• At least 4 reviews describe project completion issues: incomplete work, abandoned jobs, failure to honor warranty claims, and lack of follow-up on warranty company submissions.
• One detailed 2021 review describes aggressive behavior (yelling, profanities, threats to remove repair) during a warranty dispute, which is a serious professionalism red flag.
• Geographic service area confusion appears in multiple reviews—customers were told the company services their area but were later told they do not, causing emergency situations to worsen.
• Several blank/empty reviews with only ratings (no text) suggest possible review manipulation or incomplete submissions; however, these are minimal in number.
• One 2021 review alleges the owner called the customer unsolicited to complain about a negative review, raising privacy and professionalism concerns.
• Inconsistency in service quality: some reviews mention different owner names (Tony, Taff, Sean, Joe, Nick) across different time periods and locations, suggesting either multiple locations/franchises or name inconsistencies that create confusion.
• Review recency: approximately 40% of reviews are from 2020 or earlier; more recent reviews (2024-2025) show mixed quality with some serious complaints about responsiveness.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. While the company excels in professionalism and technical expertise based on substantial evidence, the recurring pattern of communication failures, incomplete project follow-through, and at least one documented incident of aggressive customer interaction significantly undermines trustworthiness. The score reflects strong technical capability but inconsistent execution and customer service reliability. Prospective customers should verify service area coverage in advance and establish clear communication protocols before hiring.

Jaykom demonstrates exceptional performance across all measured dimensions. All four reviews explicitly praise professionalism (punctuality, politeness, communication, responsiveness), with customers highlighting quick response times and thorough explanations. Project completion is consistently strong, with jobs finished completely and customers reporting satisfaction with follow-through and cleanup. Technical expertise is repeatedly emphasized, with reviewers noting problem-solving ability, knowledge, and quality workmanship. Pricing mentions are limited but positive, with customers noting fair alternatives and value-conscious recommendations. However, the sample size is small (4 reviews) and all reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language, which warrants moderate confidence rather than high.

• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or balanced perspectives
• Reviews contain repetitive superlative language ('BEST', 'rare find', 'never use another plumber') that could suggest selection bias or potential review curation
• Sample size is very small (n=4); scores should not be considered highly reliable
• Three of four reviews are older than 5 years (2017-2019); only one review from 2018 is within recent timeframe; recency data is limited
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; insufficient data for confident pricing assessment

This WW Score of 93.8 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews), absence of any critical feedback, and age of most reviews. The score reflects genuinely positive sentiment but lacks the volume and diversity of perspectives needed for high confidence. Additional recent reviews would be needed to validate this assessment.

Hicks Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with timely arrivals, responsive communication (same-day and next-morning service), and courteous demeanor noted in all four reviews. Pricing is described as reasonable and fair across multiple job types. Project completion is reliable, with jobs finished promptly and follow-through demonstrated through coordination with other service providers. Technical experience is evident but mentioned less explicitly, though pipe replacement and emergency response work suggest solid skill. The score reflects solid, dependable service with no negative feedback detected.

• All four reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — while this may reflect genuine quality, the uniformity warrants noting. However, each review contains specific details (named technicians, specific job types, timeline details) that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• Review dates span 2018–2023, with three reviews older than 2 years. Only one review (2023-12-28) is from the past 12 months, limiting recency of evidence.
• Experience dimension based on only 2 explicit mentions; score is conservative given limited data.

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with moderate confidence. While all available reviews are positive and contain specific details suggesting authenticity, the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of most reviews (3 of 4 from 2018–2021) limit the strength of this assessment. Recent performance data is minimal.

Silvester & Sons demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions based on three reviews. Professionalism is evidenced by punctuality, cleanliness, and ease of working with the team. Pricing is competitive relative to alternatives, with transparent recommendations favoring customer savings. Project completion is consistently reliable, with jobs finished as scheduled and producing expected results. Technical expertise is clearly demonstrated through problem-solving ability and knowledge of complex drainage and septic systems. However, the sample size is small and all reviews are older than 2 years, limiting confidence in the overall assessment.

• Review 3 (dated 2019-05-08) contains highly unusual language and formatting with explicit vocabulary lists unrelated to service quality. While ultimately positive (5-star), the writing style is atypical and raises questions about authenticity or reviewer mental state. This review is also the oldest in the set (5+ years old).
• All three reviews are dated 2019 or earlier; no recent reviews (past 12 months) are available. Current service quality cannot be verified.
• Sample size is very small (n=3). Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only.

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary due to small sample size (3 reviews) and lack of recent data. While the available evidence is positive, confidence is limited and the score may not reflect current service quality.

Rizzo Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning over a decade, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendly technicians, and fair pricing. The professionalism score is tempered by a recurring and credible pattern of serious complaints: multiple independent reviewers describe John Rizzo as rude, condescending, or dismissive — including one reviewer reporting he was cursed at directly, and another describing mistreatment of a senior citizen. Project completion is similarly mixed: while most jobs are described as completed efficiently, at least 5 reviews explicitly describe no-shows, abandoned work, or failure to follow through on estimates and appointments — including a paid job left unfinished with no hot water restored. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or competitive, though two reviewers flagged unexpectedly high charges or excessive material markups. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, but at least two reviews cite outright misdiagnosis or incompetent workmanship, which prevents a higher score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-12-09 are nearly word-for-word identical (cast iron pipe + disposal install). One may be a duplicate submission or a fake review inflating the rating.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2016-07-14 and 2016-07-20 describe nearly identical experiences (same sequence of events, same complaint about John not returning calls and refusing service). One appears to be the same reviewer or a coordinated submission.
• 13 reviews contain no text (labeled 'unknown' or blank with only a rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of high-volume positive reviews are from 2013–2020. Only 6 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (2024–2025), and one of those is a 1-star complaint about rudeness. Recent data is thin.
• BEHAVIORAL PATTERN FLAG: Multiple independent negative reviews (across different years: 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2025) describe the same specific behavior — John Rizzo being rude, dismissive, or refusing service without notice. This consistency across unrelated reviewers over many years suggests a genuine and persistent conduct issue with the owner, not isolated incidents.
• One 1-star review (2020-06-10) about running a vent outside the wall and placing a downpipe in the middle of the floor describes a significant workmanship failure. Another 1-star (2020-09-23) describes misdiagnosis and a $605 charge for work that did not restore hot water. These are serious quality and ethics concerns.
• One review (2010) references 'Manomet Plumbing' rather than Rizzo Plumbing, suggesting it may have been posted to the wrong business profile and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, 112 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume terms, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of owner misconduct complaints, at least two credible workmanship failures, and a thin recent review base — the true current performance of this company may differ from the historical average reflected here.

The majority of reviews paint Julian as a highly skilled, responsive, and professional plumber who handles complex jobs — including tight-space water heater replacements, pipe leak diagnostics, and gas line extensions — with strong technical competence and clean workmanship. Pricing is consistently described as fair or better than competitors, with no hidden charges noted. However, two negative reviews from September 2020 meaningfully drag down the professionalism and project completion scores: one describes unprofessional, rude technicians and no management callback, and another describes a missed appointment with no follow-up call, both indicating a breakdown in reliability and communication during that period. These negative signals are weighted seriously despite being outnumbered, as they represent real failures in core service delivery. The overall picture is of a contractor with genuine skill and mostly strong customer relationships, but with documented lapses in follow-through and professionalism that cannot be ignored.

• Two negative reviews (2020-09-04 and 2020-09-06) describe serious professionalism and project completion failures: rude technicians, a missed appointment, and no management callback. These are credible and specific complaints that meaningfully lower confidence in consistency.
• Several positive reviews describe nearly identical scenarios (water heater replacement in tight spaces, same-day service, Julian working alone). While this likely reflects a genuine specialty, the pattern warrants mild scrutiny for possible coached or curated reviews.
• Most high-quality positive reviews are from 2023 and 2021–2022, while the two negative reviews are from 2020. This recency pattern is somewhat favorable but the negative reviews are not old enough to fully discount.
• Four reviews are older than 5 years (2017–2019). Per recency rules, these carry reduced weight in the final score assessment.
• The 1-star review mentions 'guys they sent out' (plural, implying employees), while most positive reviews reference Julian personally as owner-operator. This may suggest quality inconsistency when Julian is not personally on the job.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions at HIGH confidence, but the presence of two credible negative reviews describing specific failures in professionalism and follow-through, combined with several older reviews, means the score should be treated as a reasonable but not definitive indicator of current service quality.