Find Nearby Plumbers In Baltimore, Maryland

Heil Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, courteous technicians, and clear communication across 285 reviews. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and follow-through honored, though a few callback issues noted. Technical expertise is evident with skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship across 156 mentions. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 78 reviews explicitly citing costs as high, overpriced, or double competitors' rates—this is the primary detractor from an otherwise excellent score. The company excels in service quality but struggles with value perception.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 15-20) explicitly state Heil charges 2-3x more than competitors for identical work. Several customers report $750-$1350 for jobs taking under 2 hours. This is a consistent and material complaint that significantly impacts overall value perception.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-09, 2025-06-06, 2025-06-05 show near-identical text repetition (e.g., 'Excellent service. Took the time to explain the problem and go over the options. Wasn't pushy or try to upsell like other people I've used previously. I'm customer for life now.' appears verbatim on multiple dates). Additionally, 'Rob was punctual, knowledgeable, and explained clearly our options. Highly recommend the quality of work,' repeats identically. This suggests potential review manipulation or data duplication. Confidence in recent 2025 reviews should be treated as LIMITED.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE FRICTION: Multiple reviews mention surprise $95 service/diagnostic fees that were not clearly disclosed upfront, creating customer dissatisfaction even when work quality was good.
• INCONSISTENT FOLLOW-UP: A few reviews mention delayed callbacks or failure to return calls after initial contact, though this is rare (2-3 instances).
• ESTIMATE ACCURACY: One review notes estimate was quoted as $310 but actual charges were $310 + $140 per shutoff valve ($280 total), creating surprise charges despite upfront estimate claim.
• RECENCY BIAS: The majority of 5-star reviews cluster in April-June 2025 and May-November 2024, with many showing generic praise. Older reviews (2013-2019) tend to be more detailed and balanced, suggesting possible recent review quality decline or manipulation.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion quality, but the pricing dimension (68.0) is the most trustworthy finding—pricing complaints are consistent, specific, and corroborated across many independent reviews spanning years. However, confidence in the overall score is moderately reduced due to detected review duplication in recent 2025 submissions and clustering of generic 5-star reviews; the true score likely ranges 79-85 depending on how heavily recent potentially-manipulated reviews are weighted. Heil Plumbing delivers quality work and professional service but at a premium price point that many customers find unjustifiable.

Frank demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across 16 reviews. His technical expertise and quality workmanship are well-documented across 10 reviews spanning multiple service types. Pricing is fair and competitive per 9 reviews, though not the cheapest option. Project completion shows solid performance (78/100) with one significant no-show incident in April 2024 that substantially impacts this dimension, balanced against numerous on-time completions. The recent no-show contrasts sharply with his historical reputation, suggesting possible operational changes or capacity issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2012-2020). Only 2 recent reviews from 2024 and 2023. The April 2024 no-show incident is the most recent negative feedback and represents a departure from historical pattern.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: April 2024 review documents two no-shows with poor communication and unprofessional follow-up. This is a severe breach of the professionalism and project completion standards established in earlier reviews.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Multiple older reviews (2002, 2004, 2006) contain minimal detail or are marked 'unknown'. Several reviews use similar phrasing ('honest, reliable, fair') but this appears consistent with genuine long-term customer satisfaction rather than fake reviews.
• CAPACITY WARNING: 2004 review mentions Frank becoming 'very busy' with difficulty scheduling callbacks, suggesting historical capacity constraints that may have resurfaced.

This score should be treated with CAUTION due to recency bias: the strong historical reputation (pre-2023) is undermined by a documented no-show incident in April 2024, suggesting current service quality may not match the 82.3 score. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying current scheduling practices before engagement.

ACE Plumbing, Heating and Air draws an overwhelmingly positive picture across a large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising specific technicians by name — particularly Aaron, Chappy, Gerry, Ryan, Manuel, Everett, Martin, Josh, and others — for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Project completion scores are strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, often under emergency conditions. Experience scores are elevated by repeated praise for diagnostic accuracy, technical depth, and creative problem-solving (e.g., Chappy saving a customer $8,000 by avoiding an unnecessary mini-split installation, Martin keeping a 34-year-old HVAC unit running). Pricing scores are pulled down meaningfully by a cluster of credible negative reviews citing hidden fees (credit card surcharges, travel time charges, truck fees), overcharging for simple jobs, and one reviewer being quoted $1,200 for a job another plumber did for $200. Professionalism is also modestly penalized by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing rude staff, no-shows, failure to honor warranties, and at least one technician (Mike/Mohammad) accused of fraud and non-refund — these are serious flags that prevent a higher score despite the dominant positive signal.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are near-identical in wording and posted on consecutive dates (June 6-8 and June 5-7, 2025). The Aaron review and the Martin/Aaron AC review each appear twice with different dates. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding and reduces confidence in the most recent review cluster.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A review posted by the company owner (Max Greenberg) praising his own technician Chappy is included in the dataset. While disclosed, this is a self-review and should carry zero weight in scoring. It has been excluded from scoring calculations.
• HIDDEN FEES / PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple credible negative reviews cite undisclosed fees including a 5% credit card surcharge, a $30 travel time charge, and a $10 truck fee not disclosed at booking. One reviewer was charged $470 to auger three drains with no upfront pricing disclosure. These are material pricing integrity concerns.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (Feb 2024) names a specific technician 'Mike (Mohammad Alzawahreh)' and alleges payment was taken via Venmo for unresolved work, refund requests were ignored, and calls were evaded. This is a fraud allegation and significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews across different time periods allege that ACE failed to honor stated warranties — including a lifetime water heater guarantee, a 30-day drain warranty dispute, and a callback that was never honored after a no-show emergency call.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, including one emergency no-call no-show and one technician who broke drywall and left without completing the job.
• RUDE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple reviews spanning 2018–2024 describe rude, dismissive, or hostile interactions with staff — including hang-ups, refusal to let customers speak, and disrespectful treatment of elderly customers. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2011 to June 2025. Reviews from 2011–2018 involve different technicians and possibly different ownership/locations. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily positive and dominate the dataset, but the negative reviews from this period (hidden fees, rude manager Scott, no-show) are credible and have been weighted accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic areas including Sacramento CA, Bullhead City AZ, Toledo OH, Baltimore MD, Diamond Bar CA, Evansville IN, and others. It is likely that this dataset aggregates reviews for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Ace Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a single-contractor assessment is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple geographically distinct and likely unrelated 'Ace Plumbing' businesses have been aggregated together — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local ACE Plumbing branch before making a hiring decision.

Ehrhardt Brothers demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in technical expertise and professionalism. The company excels at punctuality, responsiveness, and quality workmanship, with numerous reviews praising specific technicians by name (Vince, Rob, Wayne, etc.). However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers reporting surprise billing, high hourly rates, excessive parts markups (5-6x retail), and billing for time spent in vehicles or writing invoices. Project completion is solid with good follow-through, though a few reviews mention incomplete work or callbacks. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with honest intentions but pricing practices that create customer friction.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) explicitly mention billing surprises, high parts markups (one customer reported $120 in parts marked up from ~$25 retail), hourly rate minimums, and charges for non-work time (truck time, invoice writing). This is the most consistent complaint pattern.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear verbatim or near-verbatim across different dates (e.g., the 'Outstanding, fast service from Ehrhardt Brothers plumbers' review about Wayne H. and the shower valve appears at least twice with identical text but different dates: 2024-06-06 and 2024-02-09). This suggests possible review manipulation or system duplication.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews with no text content (empty review text field) appear clustered on 2024-06-06, 2022-06-07, 2021-06-07, and other dates. These blank 5-star reviews (approximately 15-20 instances) lack any substantive information and may indicate artificial review inflation.
• MAJOR COMPLAINT REVIEWS: Several 1-star reviews provide detailed, specific complaints about incomplete work, damage to property (cracked concrete, water main leak, sewage backup), failure to follow instructions, and unprofessional communication. One review from 2021-10-10 alleges most reviews are fake and describes serious project mismanagement over 4 months.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: A few reviews mention the same company providing excellent service in one instance but poor service in another (e.g., one customer had a great experience years ago but was overcharged on parts in a recent visit). This suggests variability in pricing practices or technician quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2020-2025, with a heavy concentration in June 2024 and June 2022. Older reviews (2012-2019) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. Recent reviews (2025) include the two identical 1-star complaints about lack of specifics, which may indicate a coordinated negative campaign or legitimate systemic issues.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and experience dimensions, but LOWER confidence for pricing assessment due to conflicting signals: while many reviews praise fair pricing, a substantial minority report significant billing surprises and parts markups that contradict the 'honest' narrative. The presence of duplicate and blank reviews raises concerns about review authenticity. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates with parts costs itemized and explicitly confirm billing practices before engaging this contractor.

Thomas the Plumber demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strengths in professionalism and pricing. The contractor consistently receives praise for responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, and technical competence. However, the score is tempered by a notable pattern of negative reviews (approximately 8 one-star and 1-2 star reviews) documenting serious issues including poor communication, unprofessional behavior, incomplete work, and unresolved legal disputes. While the majority of reviews are highly positive and recent (past 24 months), the severity and specificity of complaints—including a court judgment for $1,800+ and allegations of name-calling—indicate genuine service inconsistencies that cannot be ignored despite the high volume of satisfied customers.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One review documents a court judgment against the contractor for $1,800+ related to improper sump pump installation, blocked main line diagnosis failure, and alleged unprofessional conduct (name-calling). The contractor reportedly failed to appear in court and has ignored collection attempts for 2+ years.
• PATTERN OF NEGATIVE INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR: Multiple reviews (5+ instances) describe the contractor as impatient, rude, aggressive, or dismissive when customers ask questions or have concerns. One customer reported being called a 'liar,' another reported yelling and cursing, and another described him as 'frustrated' when answering the phone.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Several reviews describe incomplete diagnoses (running toilet missed, water pressure regulator issue misdiagnosed), abandoned appointments without communication, and refusal to honor warranty obligations on a water heater installed 4 years prior.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 3 reviews document instances where the contractor did not answer phone calls, declined calls, hung up on customers, or failed to communicate reasons for canceling appointments.
• PAYMENT/LOGISTICS FRICTION: Multiple reviews mention last-minute demands for cash/check only, impatience with customers who couldn't provide exact addresses, and friction over payment methods.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are distributed across 2014–2024, with recent serious complaints in 2023–2024, suggesting ongoing issues rather than historical problems.
• NOT FAKE REVIEWS: The negative reviews are detailed, specific, and include documentation of court proceedings, property damage, and named third parties. They do not exhibit the generic phrasing or repetitive language typical of fake reviews. They appear to be genuine customer experiences.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be interpreted with caution: while the majority of reviews (approximately 85–90%) are highly positive and support strong technical competence and fair pricing, the presence of multiple serious, well-documented complaints—including a court judgment, allegations of unprofessional conduct, and service failures—indicates that customer experience is inconsistent and dependent on circumstances and interpersonal dynamics. The contractor appears capable of excellent work but may struggle with communication, patience, and follow-through in complex or stressful situations. Prospective customers should be aware that positive outcomes are common but negative outcomes, while less frequent, can be severe.

Five Star Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and pricing. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and maintaining professional demeanor, with 52 reviews explicitly praising these attributes. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, with 28 mentions of transparent quotes and good value. Project completion shows solid performance with most jobs finished as promised, though a small number of reviews (3 negative cases from 2012-2018) document serious follow-through failures including no-shows and incomplete callbacks. Technical expertise is well-regarded with skilled workmanship noted across multiple complex jobs. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects reliable, professional service with minor concerns about consistency in project completion and customer follow-up.

• Three significant negative reviews (2012, 2017, 2018) document serious project completion failures: no-shows with no communication, unresolved drainage issues requiring multiple callbacks, and pricing disputes. These are older but represent material service failures.
• One 2020 review documents unprofessional behavior by owner Chris and staff (rudeness, failure to complete yard restoration, poor cleanup), contradicting the overwhelmingly positive characterization of professionalism elsewhere. This suggests inconsistency in service quality or staff behavior.
• Multiple reviews from 2024-2025 (past 12 months) show consistently perfect 5-star ratings with very similar positive language patterns (punctuality, professionalism, reasonable pricing, same-day service). While not definitively fake, the uniformity and recency concentration warrant noting.
• Four reviews contain no text content (empty review fields with 5-star ratings), limiting ability to verify claims.
• Recency bias present: 35 of 67 reviews (52%) are from June 2024 onward, with only 8 reviews from before 2020. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews show more variance including critical failures.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing current performance (past 12 months) but should be interpreted with caution regarding consistency: recent reviews show exceptional professionalism and pricing, but historical data reveals serious project completion and communication failures that suggest the company may have improved significantly or experienced inconsistent quality. The score reflects strong current reputation but does not fully capture the documented service failures from 2012-2018.