Find Nearby Plumbers In Frederick, Maryland

Joe demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, communication, and helpful attitude across all four reviews. Experience is a clear strength, with explicit references to knowledgeability, Master Plumber certification, and meticulous workmanship. Project completion is solid, with same-day diagnostics and repairs documented in multiple reviews. Pricing receives positive mention in two reviews as fair and affordable. However, all reviews are from 2019–2020 (4+ years old), which limits confidence in current performance reliability.

• All four reviews are dated 2019–2020, with the most recent being over 4 years old. No recent data available to assess current service quality or any potential changes in business practices.
• Review sample size is small (n=4). While data quality is high, statistical confidence is limited by volume.
• One review (KD Kolbe, 2019) is notably longer and more detailed than others, but does not exhibit fake review patterns—it appears to be a genuine long-term customer testimonial with specific historical context (36-year relationship with father).

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to small sample size and significant age of reviews; while the available data is genuine and detailed, current performance cannot be reliably assessed without recent customer feedback.

Bilder and Sons has an overwhelmingly positive track record across a large volume of reviews spanning nearly a decade, with professionalism, punctuality, and responsiveness being the most frequently praised attributes. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling the service expensive or overpriced, and one accusing the contractor of attempting to upsell an unnecessary replacement — these negative signals meaningfully drag the pricing score down despite some positive mentions of fair value. Project completion is generally strong, but is notably impacted by one detailed negative review describing an incomplete drain-clearing job, a refusal to work in snow, and a competitor finishing the job for less, as well as a second serious review describing unauthorized work and poor shower installation quality. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers citing Kevin's knowledge, skill, and problem-solving ability, though the two substantive negative reviews introduce meaningful doubt about consistency of workmanship.

• 30+ reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank, 'Ok', 'N/A', '0', '-', 'Nothing', 'Good service.', 'Excellent!') — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed reviews are from 2014–2020. Only 3 reviews with substantive content are from 2022–2023, two of which are negative. This suggests a possible decline in recent service quality that warrants caution.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers across different years independently flagged pricing as high or excessive ('A bit pricey', 'Way over charged. $100/hr', 'Good work. Expensive.', 'A bit expensive', 'price was a little on the high side'). This is a consistent pattern, not isolated.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG (2023): One reviewer explicitly states Kevin performed unauthorized work outside the project scope, resulting in damage requiring a third-party fix, and described the shower installation as done poorly with disregard for professionalism. This is the most recent substantive negative review and carries elevated weight.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG (2020): A detailed review describes a $742 charge for an incomplete drain job, refusal to return during snow, and a competitor completing the same job for $600. This raises concerns about project completion reliability on difficult jobs.
• UPSELL FLAG (2017): One reviewer stated Kevin tried to sell a new water heater when only a minor part was needed, which the reviewer sourced from Amazon and installed themselves in 15 minutes. This aligns with the 2023 unauthorized-work complaint and suggests a pattern worth noting.
• No strong fake review pattern detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, and rating, and negative reviews are present. However, the high volume of blank or near-blank 5-star reviews is noted.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weight the two most recent substantive reviews (2023 negative, 2020 negative) heavily, as recency rules apply and they suggest possible deterioration in workmanship and project scope discipline compared to the contractor's earlier track record.

National Water Service earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and clear communication. Technical knowledge and workmanship are consistently highlighted, including complex well pump replacements, radon mitigation, and water treatment system installations. Project completion scores well overall, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished promptly and followed up on — however, two notable negative reviews describe abandoned quote processes and a subcontractor billing dispute that dragged into litigation, which meaningfully tempers the completion score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe fair and transparent pricing, two reviews explicitly criticize hourly billing practices as incentivizing slow work, one review describes a disputed $900 charge that ended in court, and one 1-star review (which paradoxically praises the company) appears to be a rating error. The score reflects a genuinely strong contractor with isolated but serious service failures that prospective customers should be aware of.

• RATING ANOMALY: One review dated 2018-07-10 is rated 1-star but contains entirely positive content praising pricing, professionalism, and service. This is likely a rating input error and was treated as a positive review for scoring purposes, but flagged here for transparency.
• BILLING DISPUTE — SERIOUS: One detailed 1-star review (2019-03-29) describes a $900 charge for subcontracted excavation work with no invoice provided, hostile communications from the VP, and a court proceeding. This is a significant red flag for pricing transparency and professionalism.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: Two separate reviews (2017-02-02 and 2018-07-26) describe the company failing to deliver promised written quotes after site visits, wasting customers' time. This negatively impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• HOURLY BILLING CONCERN: Two reviews (2023-07-10 and 2021-07-01) independently criticize the company's hourly billing model as non-competitive and potentially incentivizing slower work. This is a recurring pricing concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 40+) are dated within the past 12 months (2024-2025), which is a positive signal. Negative reviews are predominantly from 2017-2023, suggesting possible service improvement over time, though this cannot be confirmed with certainty.
• VOLUME SKEW: The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star with very few negative reviews. While this may reflect genuine quality, the ratio warrants mild caution. However, the negative reviews that do exist are detailed and specific, lending them credibility and reducing fake-review concern for the negative set.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text content (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a large and mostly recent review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the presence of serious, detailed negative reviews involving billing disputes, litigation, and abandoned follow-through introduces meaningful uncertainty, and prospective customers should request written contracts and itemized quotes before authorizing any work.

Anders Plumbing has a long and largely positive track record spanning nearly two decades of reviews, with consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, honesty, and quality workmanship across dozens of customers. The professionalism score is strong but tempered by one detailed and credible 1-star review describing a contractor who abandoned a booked job, attempted upselling, and communicated poorly — a serious professionalism failure. Pricing is generally described as reasonable or fair, but is pulled down by two notable complaints: one involving repeated price increases on the day of service with no resolution, and another where the customer was charged $140 simply for a refusal to install a customer-supplied water heater. Project completion scores well overall, with most reviewers confirming work was finished cleanly and correctly, though the abandoned job incident and the unresolved service call in the 1-star pricing complaint are meaningful deductions. Experience scores highest among the dimensions, with multiple reviewers noting problem-solving ability, technical skill, and successful resolution of issues other plumbers could not diagnose.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• One blank review (no text, 5-star rating, dated 2023-06-10) was excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews dated 2021 (one on 2021-06-10 and one on 2021-01-22) are nearly word-for-word identical, describing the same complaint about price increases and unresolved service. This is a likely duplicate submission by the same customer and was counted as a single incident for scoring purposes to avoid double-penalizing.
• Two reviews (2018-06-11 and 2018-01-23) are also nearly identical in content, differing only slightly in wording. These appear to be duplicate submissions and were treated as one review for scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only 3 reviews dated within the past 12 months (2024-2023). Recency of feedback is limited and the current service quality may differ from the historical pattern.
• Several older reviews (2004–2008) are written in all-caps, which is unusual formatting but does not on its own indicate inauthenticity — content appears genuine and specific enough to retain.
• No reviews mention warranty follow-up, post-job callbacks, or long-term outcome verification beyond the initial service visit, limiting the depth of project completion assessment.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews spanning nearly 20 years, giving it HIGH confidence in directional accuracy, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that recent feedback (past 12 months) is sparse, duplicate reviews were detected, and three credible negative reviews raise legitimate concerns about pricing transparency and job abandonment.

Art's Plumbing scores well across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the strongest area — punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication are mentioned repeatedly across many reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing is generally praised as fair or better than competitors, though one negative review from 2010 explicitly cited extravagant pricing and substandard work requiring a redo, which meaningfully tempers the pricing and project completion scores. Project completion is solid overall, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished cleanly and correctly, but the 2010 complaint about improper installation and a required return visit introduces a notable blemish. Experience scores well given multiple reviewers praised diagnostic skill and technical competence, though the 2010 negative review raised questions about licensing and workmanship quality that cannot be ignored.

• 5 reviews contain only placeholder text ('unknown', '.', or 'Very well.') with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring but all carried 5-star ratings, which slightly inflates the raw star average.
• A disproportionate number of reviews are 5-star with minimal detail, particularly in the 2012–2015 range. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution regarding authenticity of some older reviews.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 20 of 29) are older than 12 months, and most substantive reviews are from 2013–2019. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), limiting confidence in how current performance reflects historical patterns.
• One 2-star review from 2010 explicitly cited overcharging, improper installation, uncertainty about licensing, and a required redo by another contractor. This is the only negative review and was weighted accordingly in pricing and project completion scores.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are positive and specific, which is a good signal, but the sample size for recent work is small (3 reviews).

This WW Score is based on a moderately sized review set with good dimensional coverage, but reliability is somewhat reduced by the age of most reviews, several content-free placeholder reviews, and a concentration of generic 5-star ratings in older years — the score should be treated as a reasonable but not definitive indicator of current service quality.

Bravo Jetting Solutions receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions based on five reviews. Professionalism is the most frequently and enthusiastically cited strength, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, clear communication, and courteous staff — including a technician arriving exactly on time and a company owner personally answering a late Saturday call. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair, reasonable, or transparent in all five reviews, with one reviewer even expanding the scope of work after receiving the quote. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting work finished faster than predicted, problems fully resolved, and follow-through on all promised tasks. Experience is evidenced by technicians explaining root causes, recommending appropriate solutions, and successfully completing work that a prior contractor had failed or refused to do.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details, named technicians, and varied writing styles that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review recency concern: 3 of 5 reviews are from 2018–2020, which is more than 3 years old. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (November 2023). The WW Score may not fully reflect current service quality.
• Small sample size of 5 reviews limits statistical reliability. Confidence factors are applied per formula, but results should be interpreted cautiously until more recent reviews are available.

This score carries moderate overall reliability — the reviews are specific and credible with named technicians and detailed accounts, but the small sample size and predominance of older reviews (3 of 5 from 2018–2020) mean the score should be treated as a promising but not fully validated indicator of current performance.