Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Lauderdale, Florida

A&I Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with numerous reviewers praising specific technicians by name for punctuality, clear communication, and thorough cleanup. The experience dimension is bolstered by multiple reviews noting that A&I solved problems that other plumbers and companies could not, reflecting genuine diagnostic skill. However, three credible 1-star reviews introduce meaningful concern: one describes a manager using profane language and invoicing double the quoted price, another reports a paid diagnostic that failed to fix the problem with the owner dismissing the complaint, and a third describes a rude phone interaction that prevented service from even beginning. These negative reviews directly impact the pricing and professionalism scores, preventing top-tier scores in those dimensions. The score is further tempered by the fact that a significant portion of the most detailed positive reviews share the same posted date (2025-05-10), which raises a mild flag about potential batch submission.

• BATCH DATE FLAG: A large cluster of reviews (approximately 26) all share the exact same date of 2025-05-10. This is unusual and may indicate reviews were submitted or migrated in bulk rather than organically over time. Confidence in the recency and independence of these reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS: The three 1-star reviews date from 2019 to 2021. While older, they describe serious issues including price deception, an owner using profanity and hanging up on customers, and a failed repair with no accountability. These are not dismissed due to age as they describe owner/management behavior patterns.
• PRICING CONCERN: One 1-star review explicitly states the owner invoiced double the quoted price and responded with profanity when questioned. A second 1-star review describes being overcharged for a diagnostic that did not resolve the issue. These are direct, specific allegations that meaningfully reduce the pricing score.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW CONTENT: The reviewer Athena Tidwell appears to have submitted overlapping review content across two separate review entries (one dated 2025-05-10 and one dated 2024-06-27), describing the same Henry toilet installation event. This was counted as one unique mention to avoid double-counting.
• ONE REVIEW IS NOT ABOUT THIS COMPANY: The review mentioning 'Omar and Conrad' and 'All Year Cooling' appears to be a review for a different company or service division and contains no plumbing-specific feedback. It was included in the total count but its data was treated with caution.
• ROAD RAGE REVIEW: One 1-star review references a road rage incident involving a company vehicle and links to a YouTube video. This is a conduct/character flag about company culture but was not scored against any technical dimension.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted with caution due to a suspicious batch of same-date positive reviews, three credible and specific negative reviews describing serious pricing and professionalism failures at the management level, and one confirmed duplicate review entry.

Conner Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with repeated mentions of punctuality, clear communication, friendly attitudes, and responsiveness — including after-hours availability. Pricing is consistently described as fair, transparent, and as-quoted, with no hidden charges reported. Experience scores well overall, with multiple reviewers praising technical knowledge, problem-solving, and thorough explanations; however, one notable garbage disposal install required multiple return visits to correct errors, which tempers the score. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: the majority of jobs were completed fully and on time, but one reviewer reported a recurring backup shortly after service and did not call back, and the garbage disposal incident involved two post-install failures before resolution — though the contractor did ultimately make things right including a full refund. The bulk of reviews are from 2015–2020, with only two from 2006–2011, which are given reduced weight due to age.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews date from 2015–2020. Two reviews are from 2006 and 2007 respectively and are given significantly reduced weight. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date) are present, which limits confidence in current service quality.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer (2007) reported the plumbing problem recurred within days and chose not to call Conner Plumbing back, instead hiring another company. This is a meaningful signal of incomplete resolution.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: The 2016 garbage disposal review documents two separate post-install failures requiring return visits before the job was fully corrected. While the contractor ultimately resolved the issue and issued a refund, this reflects a quality control gap.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and tone. Several name specific technicians (Jason, Charles, James D, Krista). One review is critical. Language and phrasing are sufficiently varied to suggest authentic reviews.
• GENERIC REVIEW NOTE: Two reviews ('They did a good job and I would use them again' — 2011, and the all-caps review from 2006) provide minimal usable detail and contribute little to dimension scoring beyond basic sentiment.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning approximately 14 years, with most usable detail concentrated in the 2015–2020 period; the score carries HIGH confidence in pattern direction but should be treated with caution regarding current service quality given the absence of recent reviews.

ProMaster Plumbing & Backflow receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned attribute, with all 6 reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, communication, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers describing jobs that were seen through to full resolution — including one instance where Giraldo worked into the night and returned the next day to ensure everything was functioning correctly. Experience and workmanship quality are highlighted in 5 reviews, with specific references to meticulous work, inspector approval, and going beyond the scope of the original job. Pricing is mentioned positively in 3 reviews, with comparisons to larger commercial competitors and references to accurate estimates and reasonable rates, though this dimension carries only moderate confidence due to fewer explicit mentions.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied language that reduces the likelihood of fabrication.
• Four of the six reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation date; only one review (August 2023) falls within the past 12 months. The most recent activity may not reflect current service quality.
• Review volume is low (6 total). While scores are directionally reliable, the small sample size limits statistical confidence in the WW Score.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity and variety of the reviews, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small review pool, the age of most reviews, and the absence of any critical feedback to balance the assessment.

West End Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 78.2, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (82.5), experience/workmanship (84.5), and project completion (81.0). The company excels at punctuality, technician courtesy, and technical skill, with many reviews praising specific technicians like Gary Brown, Johnny, and Ted. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0), with numerous customers explicitly citing high costs, unexpected charges, and markups that substantially exceed competitor quotes. While the company maintains reliable service delivery and professional conduct, the pricing concerns prevent a higher overall score.

• PRICING PATTERN: 89 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Recurring complaints include: charges 2-3x higher than competitors, unexpected additional fees at time of service, high diagnostic fees ($95-$150), and markups on parts (e.g., $100 angle valve vs. $30 retail). This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two identical reviews appear on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03 about 'Ted' servicing water heater and kitchen sink with identical phrasing ('10 STARS!'). This suggests potential review manipulation, though the volume of other authentic reviews limits overall impact.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (particularly 2024-10-09, 2024-09-22, 2023-11-22) describe poor workmanship on major jobs (full repiping, leak detection failures, improper installations) that contradict the high experience score. These appear to be legitimate negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE VOLATILITY: Office staff receive both high praise (Tess, Jane, Carla, Alana) and harsh criticism (Susan, Mindy, unnamed receptionist). Some reviews cite rude behavior, unprofessional phone conduct, and poor follow-up from management.
• OWNER RESPONSE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2023-01-30, 2023-01-30) indicate owner Adam disputed negative reviews rather than resolving issues, which may indicate defensive posture toward criticism.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) show mixed quality with both strong praise and serious complaints. Reviews from 2012-2015 skew more positive, suggesting either improved consistency or selection bias in older reviews.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable and well-supported by 565 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical trade-off: customers consistently receive professional, timely, skilled service but at premium pricing that many find unjustifiable. The pricing weakness (68.0) is not speculative—it is documented across 89 separate reviews with specific dollar comparisons. Prospective customers should expect excellent workmanship and reliability but should obtain multiple quotes and negotiate aggressively on pricing before committing.

Infinity Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, punctuality, and courteous staff across most engagements. Pricing is generally competitive and transparent, though some customers report aggressive upselling of pressure relief valves and other add-ons. Project completion is solid overall, but a notable subset of reviews (approximately 8-10) report no-shows, incomplete work, follow-up failures, and unresolved callbacks. Technical expertise is consistently praised when work is completed, with skilled diagnostics and quality installations. The company shows significant variability in execution quality and customer service consistency, particularly around warranty work and pressure valve recommendations.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (at least 8) report aggressive upselling of pressure relief valves (PRV) at $525-$800, with customers claiming the PRV was unnecessary or already installed. This appears to be a systematic practice, particularly with American Home Shield warranty work.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly report missed appointments, no-shows, or failure to arrive during scheduled windows without communication or apology.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 4) report incomplete work, promised callbacks never made, and unresponsiveness after initial service.
• GHOSTING ON REFUNDS: Two identical reviews report being ghosted after overpaying by $1,200 on a sewer lateral job, with no response to phone or email requests for refund.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews cite rude, condescending, or argumentative behavior from office staff (particularly one named 'Gina'), including name-calling and lack of empathy.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise and minimal detail, suggesting possible review manipulation or fake reviews. Older reviews (2019-2023) show more balanced criticism.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTERING: Approximately 40 reviews from June 2025 and February 2025 contain nearly identical phrasing ('great job,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specificity, raising authenticity concerns.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in outcomes—some reviews praise exceptional work and honesty; others report substandard installations, code violations, and incomplete jobs by the same company.
• WARRANTY COMPANY FRICTION: Multiple reviews indicate the company operates primarily through home warranty companies (AHS) and appears to use warranty work as an opportunity for upselling and claim denial tactics.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness, technical skill, and professionalism in many cases, the presence of systematic issues (PRV upselling, no-shows, follow-up failures, and ghosting on refunds) combined with suspicious clustering of recent 5-star reviews suggests the overall score may be artificially inflated. The company appears to deliver inconsistent service quality depending on the technician, job type, and whether warranty work is involved. Customers should verify references, confirm appointments with a person (not online booking), and be skeptical of PRV recommendations.

Watermen Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across a large sample of reviews. Punctuality, communication, and workmanship are consistently praised. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, hourly billing practices, and costs substantially higher than competitors. While most reviews are positive, the pricing concerns and several negative experiences (including one serious billing dispute and one employee-related complaint) prevent a higher overall score. The company excels at execution but struggles with value proposition.

• PRICING PATTERN: 15 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. 8 reviews cite overpricing, excessive charges, or unfair billing practices. This is the most consistent negative theme in the dataset.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Two serious incidents flagged—one 2018 review alleges 'bait and switch' with $350 cancellation charge after price disagreement; one 2021 review reports $3,000 quote vs. $1,200 from competitor for identical work.
• HOURLY BILLING ABUSE: 2017 review documents being charged for technician travel time (45+ minutes) when technician left job site to retrieve supplies.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One 2023 review (South Bend location) reports installer error (screw in wiring) with no compensation offered. One 2017 review reports smug attitude and refusal to address simple faucet issue.
• EMPLOYEE RELATIONS: One 2022 review alleges unfair termination practices and exploitation of benefits timing.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews (48 of 67) are from 2023-2025, providing strong current data. However, pricing complaints span entire timeline (2015-2025), suggesting systemic issue.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Multiple reviews from 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 with identical 5-star ratings and generic praise language ('Amazing', 'Highly recommend', 'Professional'). Three reviews contain no text. Pattern suggests possible review manipulation, but substantive reviews with specific details (water heater replacement, shower panel installation, pipe repair) provide counterbalance. Confidence reduced slightly due to this pattern.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 67 reviews with strong data density across all dimensions. The HIGH overall confidence reflects consistent patterns: professionalism and completion are genuinely strong (42+ and 38+ mentions respectively), but pricing is a legitimate and material weakness (15 explicit mentions with 8 negative citations). The score appropriately reflects a company that executes well but overcharges—a meaningful trade-off that customers should understand before hiring.