Find Nearby Plumbers In Baltimore, Maryland

Carson Plumbing has a large and deeply divided review base. The majority of positive reviews — many from 2019 to present — describe a responsive, professional, and fairly priced operation with skilled technicians like Tony, Paul, Sam, and others who arrive on time, explain issues clearly, and complete jobs thoroughly. However, a significant cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning 2014 through 2024 — describes a pattern of no-shows, broken promises, incompetent diagnosis, hidden charges, and rude or threatening behavior, predominantly associated with a technician named Mark or Marc, often dispatched through home warranty companies. This bifurcation substantially drags down all four dimension scores. Project completion is penalized most heavily due to multiple documented cases of abandoned work, repeat visits that failed to resolve issues, and jobs left incomplete for weeks. Professionalism is similarly impacted by credible accounts of aggressive behavior, dishonesty, and failure to communicate.

• SPLIT IDENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to describe two very different service experiences — one associated with owner Paul Carson and technicians like Tony, Sam, and Bo (consistently positive), and another associated with a technician named Mark or Marc (consistently negative, often via home warranty dispatch). These may represent different operational periods, staff, or service channels, but the negative reviews are credible and specific.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 13 reviews all dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10 share suspiciously generic language (e.g., 'The technician quickly found the issue and fixed it,' 'handled it fast,' 'great service and very reliable'), lack specific names or job details, and follow identical structural patterns. These are likely artificially generated reviews and have been weighted conservatively.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('It did well, he did a great job.') appear on the same date (2022-02-27), and a third near-identical review ('It did well.') also appears on the same date. These are likely fake or padding reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed water heater replacement review mentioning Tony and Paul (with pressure follow-up visits) appears twice — once dated 2024-06-09 and once dated 2023-07-19 — with near-identical text. Only one instance was counted.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 14 reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, while the most detailed negative reviews span 2014–2024. The negative pattern associated with 'Mark/Marc' appears across multiple years, suggesting a persistent issue rather than an isolated incident.
• HOME WARRANTY CHANNEL: A disproportionate share of negative reviews originate from customers assigned Carson Plumbing through home warranty companies (First American, Sears, etc.). This channel appears to produce significantly worse outcomes and may reflect a different operational standard than direct-hire jobs.
• HIDDEN CHARGES FLAG: Multiple negative reviews specifically cite unexpected fees, charges for unnecessary parts, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. One review (2021) from a long-term customer also raised billing transparency concerns. This suppresses the pricing score despite many positive pricing mentions.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor's quality appears highly dependent on which technician is dispatched and whether the job originates from a direct hire versus a home warranty referral, making the aggregate score an imperfect predictor of any individual customer's experience.

Prime Plumbing receives strong and consistent praise for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers highlighting friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians across a large and diverse review base spanning many years. Technical experience and workmanship are similarly well-regarded, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians who diagnosed and resolved complex issues effectively. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, misdiagnoses requiring repeat visits, and jobs left incomplete — including at least one case of water damage caused by faulty repair. Pricing is the most significant drag on the score: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints describes charges perceived as grossly excessive, hidden fees, dispatch charges not rolled into jobs, credit card surcharges, and instances of what reviewers characterize as predatory pricing targeting elderly or uninformed customers — this dimension alone pulls the overall score down considerably.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Thank you Brandon for the great service!' (5-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04. The review 'My plumber Bobby C was friendly and highly skillful...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03. These are likely fake or bot-submitted duplicate reviews and have been flagged; confidence in the 5-star cluster from early June 2025 is reduced.
• SUSPICIOUS GENERIC REVIEWS: A significant number of reviews consist of a single sentence or less with no specific detail (e.g., 'Great job', 'He did a great job', 'Awesome service'). Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings are present and provide no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW REFERENCES A DIFFERENT COMPANY NAME: One review explicitly praises 'Modern Septic Plumbing in Ocala' rather than Prime Plumbing, suggesting it may have been posted to the wrong business profile or is fabricated.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE NUMEROUS AND SPECIFIC: At least 20+ reviews across multiple years describe overcharging, including $554 to snake a drain, $847.60 to unclog two toilets, $3,000 for a 40-gallon water heater, $600+ for simple snaking jobs, and $475 for an outdoor spigot. Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company targets elderly customers.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews describe the company failing to return calls for weeks or months, not honoring quotes, not completing jobs after initial visits, and in one case abandoning an emergency repair mid-job. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The scoring gives appropriate weight to the large volume of recent reviews (2024-2025), which are more representative of current operations. Older reviews (pre-2020) reference specific technicians and owners (e.g., Dana) who may no longer be with the company, suggesting possible ownership or operational changes over time.
• UNRESOLVED DAMAGE CLAIM: At least one reviewer (January 2024) describes a botched toilet repair that caused water damage to ceilings and walls, with the company admitting human error but then failing to follow up or provide resolution — a serious project completion and liability concern.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (290 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the dimensional scores; however, the presence of confirmed duplicate reviews, numerous generic or blank reviews, and a strong recurring pattern of pricing complaints and follow-through failures means the score should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment — Prime Plumbing delivers competent and professional service in many cases but carries meaningful and well-documented risk around pricing transparency and job completion reliability.

Abbott's Plumbing scores reasonably well on professionalism and experience, with the large majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and arrive on time — however, a meaningful minority of reviews describe punctuality failures, misdiagnoses, and unprofessional conduct by specific staff members, which prevents a higher score. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are finished thoroughly and callbacks are honored, but there are repeated complaints about poor trench restoration after sewer work, abandoned or incomplete fixes, and at least one case of a warranty dispute where the company refused to correct its own installation error. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the entire review history, with dozens of reviewers independently describing charges as excessive, opaque, or exploitative — including multiple accounts of charges for minimal or failed work, a $49 service fee used as a hook, and estimates dramatically higher than competitors. Experience scores moderately well given strong technical praise from many customers, but is tempered by documented misdiagnoses on tankless water heaters and other systems that resulted in unnecessary costs for customers.

• 15 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank or single-character entries such as 'unknown', 'n/a', '.') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank 5-star entries inflate the raw star average and may represent low-effort or inauthentic submissions.
• Pricing complaints span the full date range from 2005 to 2025 and are highly consistent in describing the same patterns: high flat-rate charges for short jobs, a $49 service fee used as a commitment device, and estimates far above market rate — this consistency across many independent reviewers is credible and not a fake-review pattern, but it is a serious structural concern.
• At least three reviews describe what appear to be misdiagnosis events on water heaters (tankless and hybrid), where Abbott's recommended full replacement when a simpler fix was available — one customer resolved the issue themselves using manufacturer support after paying Abbott's over $700.
• One review (2024-09-12) alleges a foreman arrived smelling of alcohol and that the company's work on a neighbor's sewer line caused repeated basement flooding and a full basement remodel — this is a serious allegation that could not be independently verified but is detailed and specific.
• One review (2020-06-13) claims to be from a current or former employee alleging the company underpays staff and uses cheap materials while charging premium prices — this is unverifiable but noted as a potential internal quality concern.
• Several reviews from 2012–2015 describe yard and property damage following sewer line work that was not adequately remediated, and a 2024 review echoes the same complaint about trench settling — this is a recurring pattern across many years.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2024–2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005–2013 are numerous but many are very brief or marked 'unknown' and carry reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily as it reflects a persistent, well-documented pattern of overcharging that appears consistently across independent reviewers from multiple time periods.

Perfect Plumbing has a large and long review history showing genuinely strong technician-level professionalism — many reviewers praise individual techs (Eli, Bob, Cam, Joel, James) as friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. However, the record is significantly undermined by a persistent and recurring pattern of serious failures: multiple reviews across different years describe missed appointments, no-shows, unreturned calls, and jobs left unfinished for months. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling the service expensive or feeling overcharged, and at least two reviews describing what appear to be unnecessary upselling or outright misdiagnosis. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with credible accounts of abandoned work, failed inspections never remedied, and warranty disputes going back years. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more positive, suggesting possible operational improvement, but older negative reviews document serious systemic issues that cannot be ignored.

• 40 of 125 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be scored and inflate the apparent review count without providing usable evidence. This pattern may indicate review padding.
• Several reviews use 'unknown' as the review text, which provides no usable data and may indicate imported or placeholder reviews.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-03-11 and 2025-05-10 appear to have been submitted in batches with identical dates, which may indicate coordinated review submission rather than organic customer feedback.
• Multiple serious negative reviews describe abandoned jobs, unfinished work lasting months, and an owner (Josh/Frank) who repeatedly failed to return calls or complete contracted work — these are credible, detailed, and span multiple years (2013, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2024).
• At least two reviews describe potential misdiagnosis or unnecessary upselling (sump pump repair quoted at $10,000 that cost $200 elsewhere; water heater reset misdiagnosed as needing full replacement at $895 labor).
• One review describes a deeply serious allegation: a job paid in full ($14,000) that was abandoned, leaving an elderly woman's yard in a dangerous state. This was reported to the BBB and Iowa Plumbers Board of Licensure.
• Review dates span from 2006 to 2025 — nearly 20 years. Older reviews (pre-2020) are given reduced weight per recency rules, but the negative patterns they document are consistent with more recent negative reviews, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.
• The name of the owner appears inconsistently across reviews as both 'Frank' and 'Josh', which may indicate this profile aggregates reviews for more than one business entity or location, reducing score reliability.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews with usable text, but the score itself should be treated with caution given the serious and recurring nature of the negative reviews, the large number of blank reviews that may artificially inflate ratings, and the possibility that this profile aggregates multiple business entities operating under the same name.

Bruce Solomon Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with dozens of reviews explicitly praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, shoe covers, and clean work habits across many years and technicians. Experience and workmanship are also well-regarded, with repeated praise for technicians like Danny, Lenny, Billy, and Brad handling complex jobs competently. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly, though there are notable failures including a missed appointment with no record kept, an unresolved HVAC issue requiring a competitor to finish the job, and a callback situation where a technician was reportedly unhappy to return. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a very large number of reviews — spanning nearly two decades — explicitly describe quotes as dramatically higher than competitors, sometimes double or triple market rates, with multiple reviewers citing specific dollar amounts that were far exceeded by alternative providers. This persistent, well-documented pricing concern significantly pulls down the overall WW Score.

• PRICING CONCERN — SYSTEMIC AND PERSISTENT: At least 20+ reviews across 2006–2025 explicitly describe quotes or final charges as significantly above market rate. Multiple reviewers cite specific comparisons (e.g., $4,937 vs ~$2,200 for a water heater; $675 to install a customer-supplied faucet; $500 for a garbage disposal worth $80; $3,000 sump pump reroute vs $350 DIY). This is not isolated — it is a consistent, long-running pattern.
• TRUST AND ETHICS FLAGS: One detailed review (2017) alleges a technician drained AC coolant without disclosure and harvested copper piping without permission or credit. A separate review (2024) alleges a $600 diagnostic was recommended for a problem another tech fixed in 5 minutes for $235. A 2011 review alleges a sump pump was unplugged and falsely reported as broken. These are serious allegations that could not be verified but are specific and detailed.
• MISSED APPOINTMENT / RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One review (2017) describes a confirmed appointment with no record kept and no remediation offered. One review (2018) describes being left without water all weekend after being told someone would call right away. These are isolated but notable failures in an otherwise responsive company.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of high-quality, detailed positive reviews are from 2021–2025 and carry more weight. Many older reviews (2005–2016) are either 'unknown', blank, or very brief and contribute limited usable data. Blank/unknown reviews were excluded from dimension scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SCREENING: No strong indicators of fake reviews detected. Positive reviews reference specific technician names (Lenny, Danny, Billy, Brad, Chris), specific job types, and multi-year relationships. Negative reviews are similarly specific with dollar amounts and job details. The review set appears largely authentic.
• 9 reviews contained no text ('unknown', blank, or single-word entries) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-decade review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score is highly reliable, and the pricing dimension in particular is exceptionally well-documented — prospective customers should treat the low pricing score as a strong, evidence-backed signal rather than an anomaly.

Aqua Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and fair pricing, with many reviewers noting same-day or rapid service and reasonable rates. However, the review pool contains several serious negative accounts that significantly temper the overall score — including a flooding repair left incomplete, a clogged drain billed as fixed when it was not, a no-show without notification causing a customer to lose a day's pay, and a months-long billing dispute for unresolved work. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because multiple reviews explicitly describe jobs that were not finished correctly on the first visit or were abandoned entirely, which is a critical failure category. Professionalism scores are pulled down by documented instances of condescending attitude, laughing off complaints, and showing up at a home without permission. Pricing scores remain relatively stronger as the majority of reviewers who mentioned cost described it as fair or reasonable, with only one reviewer calling it 'pricey' and one negative outlier involving disputed billing for incomplete work.

• Multiple reviews describe incomplete or incorrectly completed work followed by poor follow-through — this is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• At least three reviews (2018-11-07, 2022-07-19, 2024-10-01) describe serious project completion failures where the customer was left worse off or without resolution.
• One review (2018-09-14) and one review (2024-10-01) explicitly describe dismissive or rude behavior from technicians, suggesting an attitude problem is not isolated to one employee.
• The 2018-11-07 review describes billing for unresolved work and adding late fees while ignoring customer callbacks for months — a significant ethical concern.
• Review recency note: The majority of highly positive reviews are from 2016–2021. The two most recent reviews (2022 and 2024) are both negative, which may indicate a decline in service quality in recent years. The most recent review (2024-10-01) is a 1-star describing an unresolved flooding situation and unprofessional behavior.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied language. Review authenticity appears generally credible.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews with broad dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a notable cluster of serious negative reviews in more recent years (2022–2024) that suggest possible service quality decline from the company's earlier performance.