Find Nearby Plumbers In Stamford, Connecticut

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism is severely compromised by one explicit complaint about failure to return multiple phone calls, which directly contradicts the generic praise in other reviews. Project completion shows mixed results: one review confirms timely arrival and problem-solving with a necessary callback, while another vague 5-star review provides no substantive detail. The oldest reviews (2012–2016) lack specificity and cannot be reliably weighted. With only 5 total reviews, 2 of which contain no usable detail, confidence in this score is inherently limited.

• Two reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no text — cannot be evaluated for authenticity or dimension coverage
• Extreme rating polarization: 4 five-star reviews vs. 1 one-star review with no middle ground suggests potential review manipulation or severe service inconsistency
• Generic praise ('They were perfect') with zero specifics raises authenticity concerns
• All reviews are older than 8 years (2012–2016); no recent data available to assess current service quality
• One explicit professionalism failure (non-responsiveness to phone calls) directly contradicts vague positive reviews, indicating either inconsistent service or unreliable feedback

This score should be treated with significant caution due to very limited recent data, extreme rating polarization, vague reviews lacking detail, and an explicit professionalism complaint that contradicts generic praise; a current assessment with recent reviews is strongly recommended before making a hiring decision.

Botto Brothers has a deeply polarized review profile: a cluster of loyal long-term customers praising quality workmanship and responsiveness, set against a substantial and detailed body of negative reviews citing serious pricing misconduct, rude owner interactions, and unresolved work. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with multiple independent reviewers describing hidden charges, inflated bills, charges for parts that did not fix problems, and a 'helper' fee never disclosed upfront. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated accounts of the owner Roger Botto being rude, dismissive, and unresponsive to complaints — a pattern consistent across reviews spanning nearly a decade. Project completion is mixed: positive reviewers describe jobs finished on time and on budget, while negative reviewers describe abandoned work, unreturned calls, faulty installations never corrected, and a $38,000 heating system that failed within four years and was never remedied. Experience scores slightly higher because even some negative reviewers acknowledged technician knowledge, but multiple reviews describe technicians unable to diagnose problems or unfamiliar with the equipment they were called to service.

• PRICING MISCONDUCT PATTERN: At least 8 independent reviews across different years describe undisclosed charges, inflated hourly rates, charges for parts that did not fix the problem, and hidden 'helper' fees. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2013, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2023, 2024) independently describe the owner(s) as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to address billing disputes. This pattern is highly consistent and credible.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews are from 2023 and 2024, indicating the problematic behaviors have not improved over time. Positive reviews are more concentrated in older years (2014–2017), with fewer recent positives.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): The cluster of 5-star reviews use specific names and details (Roger, Tommy, Jay, Hank, Billy, Rich), which reduces fake review suspicion somewhat. However, the 1-star reviewer from 2023 explicitly predicted a fake positive review would follow their complaint — this warrants mild caution when evaluating the 5-star reviews.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One review describes a $38,000 heating system installation that failed within 4 years, was confirmed by 5 independent plumbers and a manufacturer's technician to be installed incorrectly, and was never remedied by Botto Brothers. This is a significant quality and liability flag.
• NON-RESPONSE PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite failure to return calls, failure to follow up on ordered parts, and failure to respond to complaints — a consistent operational failure across many years.

This WW Score is based on 23 reviews spanning approximately 11 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score of 38.7 is considered a reliable reflection of this contractor's overall performance, with the low score driven by a well-documented and multi-year pattern of pricing misconduct, poor owner communication, and unresolved workmanship failures that outweigh the genuine positive experiences reported by a smaller subset of loyal customers.

The three reviews present a mixed and inconsistent picture of this contractor. One review describes a serious failure in professionalism and project completion — a no-show appointment with no communication or follow-up — which significantly drags down scores in those dimensions. The two positive reviews highlight friendly, knowledgeable technicians who completed work efficiently, but both are from 2017 and 2019, making them over four years old at minimum. The most recent review (2023) is the negative one, which is given greater weight per recency rules and raises genuine concern about current reliability. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The only review from the past 12 months (relative to 2023) is the 1-star no-show complaint. Both positive reviews are from 2017 and 2019 — over 4 years old — and should be treated with reduced weight.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable with this volume of data.
• NO PRICING DATA: No reviews mention cost, quotes, or value for money. The pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• PATTERN NOTE: The two older positive reviews are genuine in tone with specific details, reducing fake review concern, but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence — it is based on only 3 reviews spanning 6 years, the most recent of which is a serious complaint about a no-show, making the current service quality difficult to assess reliably.

The review set is deeply polarized, with a small cluster of positive reviews offset by several highly detailed and credible negative accounts. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension: one review describes the owner screaming obscenities and making physical threats at a customer, another describes workers arriving intoxicated and uncommunicative, and a third reports complete failure to return calls. Pricing drew explicit criticism from two reviewers who described a roughly 200% markup on materials and $185/hour labor rates, with one accusing technicians of deliberately prolonging work to inflate hours. Project completion is severely undermined by one detailed account of a large multi-bathroom renovation left with leaking faucets, improperly plumbed showers, and missing parts across an 8-month job. The two positive reviews (2024 and 2023) do describe good outcomes, but they are outweighed in detail and severity by the negative accounts, and one reviewer explicitly alleges that positive Google reviews are paid for and inauthentic.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: One reviewer with 12 years of professional renovation experience explicitly alleges that positive reviews for this contractor are purchased and not authentic. This warrants elevated scrutiny of all 5-star reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent positive review is from September 2024, but two of the three most detailed negative reviews are from mid-to-late 2023, making them relatively recent and highly relevant.
• RECENCY NOTE: Two negative reviews (2021) and one positive review (2019) are older than 3 years and were given reduced weight in scoring.
• SEVERE CONDUCT FLAG: One review describes the owner making explicit verbal threats of physical violence and using extreme obscene language toward a customer during a payment dispute. This is a significant safety and professionalism concern.
• WORKER CONDUCT FLAG: One review describes crew members arriving to a job site smelling of alcohol and behaving in an incoherent and reckless manner, raising serious safety and quality concerns.
• PRICING FLAG: A detailed account describes approximately 200% markup on all parts and materials, plus $185/hour labor rates, with an allegation that technicians deliberately prolonged diagnosis time to inflate billable hours.
• PATTERN WARNING: The positive reviews are relatively brief and generic in their praise, while the negative reviews are highly specific, detailed, and include verifiable project details (location, scope, duration, dollar amounts). This asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small total review count of 7, but the negative reviews are unusually detailed and credible, the fake review allegation from a professional source is a meaningful red flag, and the severity of the conduct described in multiple negative reviews significantly depresses confidence in this contractor's suitability for hire.

The review set for MJS paints a predominantly negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with six of eight reviews explicitly calling out overcharging, inflated parts markups, unexpected diagnosis fees, and wildly excessive repair estimates — one reviewer received a second opinion and was told no work was needed at all. Professionalism is mixed: two positive reviews praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly staff, but multiple negative reviews describe broken promises, no follow-up calls, threatening debt collection language, and a technician who caused a flood and a leak. Project completion is similarly troubled, with at least two reviews describing work that was either not completed properly, caused new damage, or involved abandoned follow-through by management. The two positive reviews (both older, from 2020 and 2022) do reflect genuinely good experiences, but they are clearly outweighed by the volume and severity of the negative accounts.

• PRICING CONCERN: Six of eight reviews explicitly mention overcharging or deceptive pricing practices, including inflated parts markups, a $500+ toilet rodding, a $10,000 unnecessary excavation estimate, and a $140 diagnosis fee the customer did not agree to.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the technician caused a leak by overtightening screws and caused a flood by improperly reattaching a float stop — and that management refused to address these issues.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH CONCERN: At least two reviews describe management promising callbacks that never occurred, suggesting a systemic pattern of poor post-service follow-up.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two positive reviews are dated 2020 and 2022. All five 1-star reviews are from 2021–2024, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. More recent reviews skew heavily negative.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong indicators of fake reviews detected. The positive reviews contain specific names (Mary, Eric, Mike) and situational detail. The negative reviews are highly specific and varied in their complaints, lending credibility to both sets.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while the mention counts provide moderate-to-high confidence in the scoring direction, the small total sample size means the score should be treated as a strong warning signal rather than a definitive final verdict.

The reviews for this contractor are overwhelmingly negative across all four dimensions, with 16 of 18 reviews giving a 1-star rating. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude staff, missed appointments, unanswered calls, and an unlicensed plumber being sent to a customer's home. Pricing is a dominant complaint, with multiple reviewers documenting specific instances of parts being marked up 200–350% above retail, bait-and-switch billing, and post-service invoices for charges not previously disclosed. Project completion is critically poor, with multiple accounts of abandoned or incomplete work, refusal to return to finish jobs, and at least one instance of the company suing a customer after failing to complete work. Technical experience is marginally higher than other dimensions only because a small number of reviewers acknowledged individual technicians had some skill, but this is heavily offset by documented misdiagnoses, unnecessary part recommendations, and substandard workmanship requiring follow-up by other contractors.

• One 5-star review (2021-03-18) is brief, generic, and contains no specific job details — it may not be authentic and was treated with reduced weight.
• The single 3-star review (2019-01-23) provides some positive detail about a specific technician (James) but also acknowledges scheduling problems and warns readers to read fine print — this is the only partially positive review with credible specifics.
• Multiple reviews across different years describe nearly identical patterns: inflated part prices, post-service surprise invoices, and rude office staff — this consistency across time strongly suggests systemic business practices rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2013-03-19) alleges theft of tools by a technician from a customer's home — this is an extreme flag for trustworthiness and safety.
• One review (2013-03-20) alleges a company truck was involved in a hit-and-run incident involving a cyclist — while not directly related to plumbing service quality, it reflects on company culture and accountability.
• One review (2022-05-21) alleges the company sent an unlicensed plumber and used scare tactics including threatening a lien on a senior citizen's property — this is a serious legal and ethical flag.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent reviews are from 2023 and continue the same negative patterns, suggesting no improvement over time. Recency weighting does not benefit this contractor.
• No credible pattern of fake positive reviews detected beyond the one generic 5-star review noted above.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with strong multi-dimensional coverage and consistent negative patterns spanning nearly a decade, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — this contractor scores extremely poorly and the score should be taken seriously by any prospective customer.