Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Drain King demonstrates strong technical competency and generally reliable project completion, with most reviews praising prompt service, knowledgeable staff, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious professionalism and pricing concerns. The April 2024 review documents a catastrophic failure in diagnostic accuracy, unprofessional conduct including insulting behavior and a shouting match, and lack of follow-through on promised receipts. Additionally, a March 2023 review alleges severe overcharging ($1,903 vs. $800 fair market value), with the customer reporting feeling exploited. While older reviews (2012–2015) are overwhelmingly positive, the recent negative reviews raise material questions about consistency and trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 9+ years old (2012–2015). The two most recent reviews (April 2024 and March 2023) are significantly negative, suggesting possible service quality decline or inconsistency.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Two separate reviews allege overcharging. March 2023 review documents a 138% markup ($1,903 vs. $800 fair estimate). This pattern, though limited in mention count, is serious and explicit.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURE: April 2024 review documents insulting behavior, unprofessional conduct, shouting match, and failure to deliver promised receipt. This directly contradicts the 'professional' narrative of older reviews.
• DIAGNOSTIC COMPETENCY CONCERN: April 2024 review alleges faulty leak detection, unnecessary wall/floor opening, and defensive excuses rather than accountability. This undermines the 'experience' score despite other positive technical feedback.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2012–2015 show suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics (e.g., 'They are very nice people,' 'leackage,' 'It was fast and very satisfying'). Several 5-star reviews lack substantive detail. However, older reviews also contain specific technical details (tree roots, sewer lines, auger work), so pattern is mixed rather than conclusive.
• CASH PAYMENT ISSUE: April 2024 review notes cash payment with promised email receipt never delivered—suggests possible lack of formal business practices or accountability.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 78.2 reflects aggregate data, the recency of serious negative reviews (April 2024 and March 2023) combined with pricing allegations and professionalism failures suggests the company may not be as reliable as the older positive reviews indicate. The score is pulled down by recent evidence of diagnostic errors, unprofessional conduct, and potential overcharging, but confidence is moderated by the small mention counts for pricing (5) and the age of most positive data. Prospective customers should heavily weight the recent negative reviews and request detailed written estimates before engaging.

Moe Plumbing scores well on professionalism and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising fast callbacks, punctuality, mask-wearing, and pleasant demeanor across all six reviews. Project completion is also strong, with reviewers noting thorough work, clean-up, hauling away old fixtures, and even returning on a fully booked day to address a deeper issue. Experience is rated positively, with specific mentions of good workmanship, troubleshooting in a poorly maintained older condo, and quality fixture installation. However, pricing is a notable concern — two reviewers explicitly flagged Moe as expensive or not inexpensive, and one 2-star review described a significant price discrepancy between the quoted amount ($149) and the final charge ($215), which pulls the pricing score down considerably. Overall the contractor appears reliable and skilled but comes at a premium that not all customers feel is justified.

• Pricing concern: One reviewer reported being quoted $149 but charged $215 for a minor toilet repair, describing it as price gouging. A second reviewer noted Moe is 'not inexpensive.' This pattern warrants caution on pricing transparency.
• Recency concern: Four of the six reviews are from 2017–2021, with the most recent being April 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• Low review volume: Only 6 reviews total. While usable, this is a small sample and all dimension scores should be treated with caution. The WW Score is directional but not highly reliable at this volume.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews, the most recent of which is over three years old, so while the scoring dimensions are directionally meaningful, the overall score should be treated as a preliminary indicator rather than a definitive assessment of current service quality.

Shawn & Sons demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with staff consistently praised for responsiveness, punctuality, and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple detailed complaints about overcharging, lack of transparent quotes, and prices substantially higher than competitors. The company shows a stark polarization: long-term satisfied customers (17+ years) contrast sharply with recent customers (2022-2024) reporting aggressive pricing tactics and upselling. While workers are consistently praised, the owner's pricing practices and sales approach undermine overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple detailed, credible reviews (2022-2024) document overcharging, lack of transparent quoting, and upselling. Two separate 2022 reviews describe nearly identical pricing abuse patterns with high specificity (water heater $1,200 vs. $350 cost; faucets $250 marked down from $225 advertised price; $650 washer valve charge). This suggests systemic pricing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: Strong clustering of 5-star reviews (mostly 2016-2021 and 2024-2025) versus concentrated 1-star reviews (2022-2024). This temporal pattern suggests either a change in business practices or potential review manipulation.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW ACTIVITY: Three 1-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 use generic language ('SCAMMER SCAMMER SCAMMER', 'Horrible guy', 'Worst person') with minimal detail, contrasting with detailed negative reviews from 2022. One 2022 review explicitly documents owner requesting email address in exchange for partial refund to facilitate positive Google review—potential review manipulation.
• UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS: One 2022 review claims state investigation and potential indictments by Florida State Attorney with no corroborating evidence. This appears unverified and should be treated with skepticism.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Three reviews contain no text (2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11), limiting data quality.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: Identical review text appears twice (2024-06-09 and 2024-02-21), suggesting possible review duplication or copying.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and project completion scores are well-supported by 16-18 mentions, the pricing dimension is based on only 8 mentions and reveals serious, documented concerns about overcharging and lack of transparency that directly contradict the company's positive reputation. The temporal clustering of negative reviews in 2022-2024 and evidence of potential review manipulation further reduce confidence. Customers should independently verify pricing with multiple estimates before engaging this company.

Seal-Tite demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, quality workmanship, and problem-solving ability. However, pricing is a significant concern, with multiple customers reporting substantially overcharged bills ($400 for a $25 part, $300 vs. $150 for toilet repairs, $730 for two faucet installations) and lack of transparency in estimates. The company shows inconsistent customer service quality, with some reports of excellent communication and others describing dishonest practices and refusal to make things right. Recent reviews (2023) are more positive, but historical pattern of pricing complaints and customer disputes significantly impacts overall trustworthiness.

• PRICING PATTERN: Four separate reviews (2022, 2021, 2016, and one undated) explicitly report significant overcharging or lack of estimate transparency. This is a recurring issue, not isolated.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: One 2019 review describes owner as 'dishonest, rude, obnoxious' and reports multiple visits with disputed charges and poor communication. Contrasts sharply with positive reviews praising office staff.
• ESTIMATE TRANSPARENCY: Multiple customers report surprise bills without prior estimates or quotes. One 2023 review notes credit card convenience fee not disclosed at appointment booking.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2020 or earlier. Recent reviews (2023) are positive, suggesting possible improvement, but pricing concerns persist across timeline.
• REFUSAL TO REMEDY: 2021 review explicitly states company 'refused' to make things right after incorrect installation and overcharging.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical competence and professionalism appear genuine based on consistent positive feedback, the recurring pattern of pricing disputes and lack of estimate transparency across multiple years suggests systemic issues with business practices that significantly undermine overall trustworthiness despite strong workmanship ratings.

R&J/J&J Davis Plumbing shows strong professionalism and experience across most reviews, with consistent praise for friendly staff, quick response times, and knowledgeable technicians. However, the WW Score is significantly dampened by serious project completion issues: multiple reviews document failures to complete work, no-shows, cancellations, and follow-up problems (e.g., incomplete clogs requiring second visits, warranty disputes, service calls that only diagnosed but did not fix issues). Pricing is generally viewed favorably when work is completed, but several customers report feeling overcharged for incomplete or unnecessary services. The dataset shows a stark quality divide between recent positive reviews (mostly 2025) and older negative reviews (2017-2020), suggesting either significant company changes or potential review manipulation.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 8 consecutive 5-star reviews with identical or near-identical phrasing dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-02-09 (e.g., 'R&J Plumbing saved me when my kitchen sink clogged late at night...' appears twice verbatim). This pattern is consistent with fake or template-generated reviews.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews (mostly generic, lacking specifics) and older detailed reviews (both positive and negative). Older reviews contain specific names, dates, and detailed narratives; recent reviews are often vague.
• CRITICAL PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple documented instances of incomplete work, no-shows, cancellations without notice, and refusal to complete jobs (1-star reviews from 2020, 2019, 2018). One customer waited 7 hours for technician; another had no-show after confirming appointment multiple times.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Customer paid $600 for toilet installation (2016) with only 30-day warranty; another customer charged $80 for 15-minute visit that didn't fix the problem.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 35+ reviews are from 2025 (mostly 5-star, generic); only 8 reviews are from 2017 or earlier. This temporal clustering suggests potential review inflation or manipulation in recent months.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY NAMING: Reviews reference 'R&J Plumbing,' 'J&J Davis Plumbing,' 'JJ Plumbing,' and 'RJ Plumbing' — unclear if same company or different entities, which affects data reliability.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 reflects documented issues with project completion and follow-through, the dataset is heavily contaminated by suspicious recent 5-star reviews with repetitive language, making it difficult to assess current company performance reliably. The older, detailed reviews (2010-2020) paint a more credible but mixed picture with serious completion failures. Recommend requesting recent customer references and verifying specific project outcomes before engaging this contractor.

Christian's Plumbing shows a mixed but concerning performance pattern. While many reviews (particularly older ones from 2012-2018) praise professionalism, skill, and fair pricing, recent reviews (2024, 2019) reveal serious issues with reliability and follow-through. The company demonstrates strong technical expertise and communication when jobs proceed normally, but critical failures in project completion—including no-shows, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and abandoned work—significantly drag down the overall score. The pattern of broken promises and unresponsiveness to customers seeking refunds or rescheduling is particularly damaging and suggests operational or management deterioration over time.

• CRITICAL: Strong recency bias detected. Reviews from 2012-2018 are predominantly 5-star with detailed praise. Recent reviews (2024, 2019) show 1-star ratings for no-shows, non-responsiveness, and failure to honor commitments. This suggests significant service degradation.
• Multiple reviews (2024-03-09, 2024-02-10, 2019-10-01, 2019-03-13) report no-shows, failure to answer phone, and non-responsiveness to callbacks—a pattern suggesting systemic communication/reliability breakdown.
• One 2024 review alleges advance payment taken with no service delivery and no refund—potential fraud indicator.
• One 2024 review describes untrained staff (office lady) causing property damage (home flooding) due to lack of supervision.
• Two reviews from 2014 (Jarrod/Jerrod) report incomplete work, property damage (torn vinyl flooring), and only refund issued after legal action threatened.
• Multiple reviews with missing or generic text ('unknown', '.', 'NA') suggest data quality issues but do not appear to be fake reviews—likely platform errors.
• Scheduling reliability issues appear in multiple recent reviews (reschedules, job stacking, delays).
• Older reviews (pre-2019) show consistent 5-star ratings with specific details; newer reviews show polarized 1-star and 5-star with less detail in some cases, but this appears to reflect genuine service inconsistency rather than fake reviews.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated WW Score is 72.8, the dramatic deterioration in service quality from 2018 onward—evidenced by multiple recent reports of no-shows, non-responsiveness, and property damage—suggests the company's current reliability is significantly lower than this score indicates. The score is heavily weighted by older positive reviews; customers considering this company should prioritize the most recent reviews (2024, 2019) which reveal serious operational failures. The company may no longer be operating at the standard reflected in its historical reputation.