Find Nearby Plumbers In Frederick, Maryland

All four reviews speak positively about Jim and his company, consistently highlighting responsiveness, reliability, and a pleasant demeanor, which drives a solid professionalism score. Pricing is mentioned in two reviews as reasonable, supporting a moderate price-friendly score, though limited data prevents high confidence. Project completion is referenced across three reviews through language like 'timely,' 'reliable,' and work done 'neatly,' suggesting consistent follow-through. Experience is touched on in two reviews, noting quality workmanship and the introduction of new services, but the limited specificity keeps that score conservative. Overall, the picture is positive but the very small review pool and the age of two reviews (2017) significantly limit reliability.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about consistent performance.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2017, making them over 7 years old. These carry significantly reduced weight given the recency rule.
• The two most recent reviews (2022 and 2023) are the primary basis for current performance assessment.
• All reviews are 5-star with generally positive but brief language. While not conclusively fake, the lack of specific detail in some reviews (e.g., 'Gets out to the job fast! Always reliable!') warrants mild caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review, which is statistically uncommon for a contractor with multi-year history — this may reflect a small or self-selected review pool.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — with just 4 reviews, two of which are over 7 years old, the score lacks the data volume needed to reliably represent current and consistent contractor performance.

Of the 10 reviews analyzed, 4 contained no review text and could not contribute meaningful data. The 6 usable reviews paint a generally positive picture across all dimensions, with mentions of knowledgeable and friendly technicians, good pricing, and work completed thoroughly in a single visit. One reviewer noted scheduling difficulty, which slightly tempers the professionalism score. The experience dimension is supported by specific praise for initiative, problem-solving, and technical competence across multiple reviews. However, the majority of reviews are significantly outdated — most are from 2013–2016, with the oldest dating to 2006 — which substantially limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• 4 out of 10 reviews have no text content (listed as 'unknown') and could not be scored — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• All reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent is from 2016, nearly a decade ago. These scores may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present, making recency-weighted scoring impossible and overall reliability low.
• The 4 'unknown' text reviews all carry 5-star ratings, which may indicate incomplete data entry or potentially inflated ratings with no supporting detail.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — all usable reviews are between 8 and 18 years old, and nearly half of all reviews contain no text, making it impossible to assess current contractor performance with any meaningful confidence.

Castaway Plumbing has a generally positive track record across the reviews analyzed, with multiple customers praising the quality of work on specific jobs such as well pump installation and water heater replacement. However, one detailed 3-star review raises legitimate concerns about follow-through on ancillary tasks (insulation replacement), a minor workmanship error (aerator fitting), and customer satisfaction practices, which tempers the otherwise strong praise. Professionalism and experience scores are modestly reduced to reflect this mixed signal rather than defaulting to the high scores suggested by the majority of 5-star reviews. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, making that dimension low confidence. The overall score should be treated cautiously given the small review pool and the age of most reviews.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year relative to a current 2024 analysis date; the most recent review is from 2022, and three of five reviews are from 2014–2017, significantly reducing recency reliability.
• Several 5-star reviews contain generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'personal, professional, and excellent service' with no job details), which slightly raises concern about review depth, though not enough to flag as definitively fake.
• One review (2019) mentions a long-term relationship and referrals, which may introduce loyalty bias into the rating.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, the majority of which are over five years old, making it a LOW-reliability snapshot that should not be treated as a current or comprehensive assessment of Castaway Plumbing's performance.

Myers Plumbing has a generally positive track record across multiple dimensions based on the reviews that contain usable detail. Professionalism is mentioned in several reviews with praise for friendliness, communication, and cleanliness, but is significantly tempered by a recent 2024 report of a company vehicle driver behaving rudely and aggressively toward the public — a serious conduct concern. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as fair and consistent with estimates, but the limited mentions prevent high confidence. Project completion feedback is solid, with reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, cleaned up afterward, and aligned with estimates. Experience is reflected in praise for quality workmanship and problem-solving, though all supporting reviews are over a decade old.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are extremely old, ranging from 2012 to 2019. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024), and it is a 1-star complaint. This significantly undermines confidence in current service quality.
• CONDUCT FLAG: A 2024 review reports a driver of a company vehicle screaming at pedestrians from the window. This is a direct professionalism concern and the most recent data point available.
• LOW DETAIL REVIEW: One review consists only of a period ('.') with a 5-star rating and no text. This review was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• TEMPORAL SKEW: The positive reviews span 2012–2019 and may not reflect the contractor's current operations, staffing, or service standards. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the age of nearly all positive reviews, the presence of a recent conduct complaint, and the small total review count — prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

O'Connor Plumbing has a large and genuinely mixed review record. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — many individual technicians (Spencer, Calvin, Ethan, Steve Parker, Trevor, Cole, Tony, Greg, George, Hector, Carlos, Ken Robinson, Cody) are praised warmly for punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but this is significantly offset by multiple credible complaints about rude management (specifically a manager named Bob), no-shows, repeated appointment cancellations without apology, and dismissive office staff. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe being overcharged, receiving non-itemized bills, being charged for travel time without disclosure, and receiving quotes 2–3x higher than competitors — these are not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern. Project completion is also a serious concern, with multiple reviews describing unfinished work, repeat failures on the same job, flooded basements following shoddy grading work, drain work that did not resolve the issue, and a pattern of the company not following through on callbacks or insurance claims. Experience scores moderately — individual technicians frequently receive praise for skill and problem-solving, but several reviews describe inexperienced technicians arriving unprepared, incorrect diagnoses, and work that had to be redone by other plumbers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'As a large property management operator I use O'Connor as my primary resource...' appears verbatim twice (dated 2025-05-10 and 2024-07-01). This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially boosted review and both instances have been treated with reduced weight.
• DUPLICATE/NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The negative review describing shoddy yard grading, basement flooding, and the owner Jason's dishonesty appears three times with nearly identical text (dated 2024-06-09 x2 and 2023-09-21). While this may be the same customer updating their review, the repetition inflates the negative signal and has been counted as one unique incident.
• SUSPICIOUS UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 25 reviews have no date attached. Many of these are extremely brief, generic, and uniformly 5-star (e.g., 'Great service', 'Best Plumber in town!!!', 'Very professional, clean and fast'). Several reference a technician named 'Shyma' or 'Syama' who does not appear in any dated reviews, suggesting these may belong to a different business entity or location, or may have been seeded. These reviews were included but treated with reduced confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of detailed, substantive reviews span 2018–2025. The undated reviews cannot be assessed for recency and may skew the positive signal artificially upward.
• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: At least 10 independent reviews across multiple years explicitly describe overcharging, non-transparent billing, refusal to provide itemized invoices, and quotes significantly above market rate. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION PATTERN WARNING: Multiple independent reviews describe work that was started but not finished, repeat failures requiring multiple return visits, and the company failing to follow through on promised callbacks, parts orders, and insurance claims. One reviewer describes a basement flooding twice due to improperly completed work.
• MANAGEMENT/OFFICE CONDUCT WARNING: Several reviews specifically call out rude or dismissive behavior from office staff and management (Bob, Jason), lack of accountability, and failure to apologize for errors. This is a recurring theme distinct from individual technician performance.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (both 1-star and 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• REVIEW 'Love your TV commercial' (5-star, 2025-06-07) contains no usable service data and was excluded from all dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (130 total, 107 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall confidence in terms of sample size, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to detected duplicate reviews, a large block of suspicious undated 5-star reviews of uncertain origin, and a clear bifurcation between strong individual technician performance and systemic issues with pricing transparency, project completion, and management responsiveness.

Queen City Plumbing / Rightway Plumbing has a deeply mixed review history spanning over a decade. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, praising named technicians like Richard, Fernando, Vinton, and Hayden for professionalism, punctuality, and quality workmanship. However, a significant cluster of older reviews (2013–2021) under the Rightway Plumbing brand contains serious complaints including misdiagnosed leaks, abandoned or incomplete work, technicians causing new damage, unprofessional conduct, and pricing that multiple reviewers described as opaque or excessive. Pricing is a notable weak point, with several reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, lack of transparency, and one reviewer paying $1,575 for a farm sink install they considered unreasonable. Project completion is also dragged down by multiple accounts of jobs requiring repeat visits, unresolved issues, or work left worse than before.

• 18 of 75 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be scored and inflate the apparent review count without providing usable data.
• A large number of recent 5-star reviews (2025) are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Superb service!', 'Fast service', 'Richard was on time and did the repair') with minimal detail. While not conclusively fake, the pattern warrants caution.
• The review corpus appears to span two distinct business identities: 'Queen City Plumbing' (recent, 2025) and 'Rightway Plumbing' (older, 2013–2021). These may be the same company under a rebrand or an acquired entity. Scores are blended but the older Rightway reviews significantly lower several dimensions.
• Recency bias note: The majority of detailed negative reviews are from 2013–2021. Reviews from the past 12 months (2025) are almost entirely positive. This may reflect genuine improvement or a change in business operations, but the older negative patterns — including misdiagnosis, property damage, and unprofessional conduct — are serious enough to retain weight.
• One 1-star review (2019) alleges racist treatment by technicians. Another (2019) alleges a technician entered the reviewer's home without permission, triggering a security alarm. These are serious conduct allegations that cannot be verified but are noted.
• One review (2021) describes a technician creating a new plumbing leak and then leaving without fixing it. Another (2018) describes new plumbing installed by the company failing within weeks. These are significant project completion failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large number of reviews, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the dual-brand history, a substantial volume of serious negative reviews from prior years, and a pattern of brief or blank recent reviews that may not fully represent current service quality.