Find Nearby Plumbers In Rockville, Maryland

Walsh Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with extensive evidence of skilled workmanship, punctuality, and clean work practices. The primary weakness is pricing strategy—multiple reviews explicitly cite costs as significantly higher than competitors, though most acknowledge the quality justifies the premium. Project completion is solid overall, though a small number of negative reviews raise concerns about follow-up on warranty issues and occasional defensive responses to complaints. The business shows consistent reliability over a 20+ year track record, but pricing sensitivity and isolated service recovery failures prevent a higher overall score.

• Three reviews with 'unknown' text content (2016-05-18, 2015-10-27, 2015-05-14, 2015-05-07) cannot be analyzed; treated as unusable data.
• One completely blank review (2021-06-10, 1.0 rating) with no text; treated as unusable.
• Pricing complaints are consistent and specific across multiple reviews (2013, 2010, 2011 reviews cite 50% premium, $650 for limited hours, charges for equipment use). This is not fake review pattern but legitimate pricing concern.
• Negative reviews (1-2 stars) cluster around 2012-2013 period and involve specific disputes: sewer line cutting without consent, equipment charges, defensive response to granite countertop crack claim, and follow-up service refusal. These suggest potential service recovery and communication issues during that period.
• Most recent reviews (2019-2025) are uniformly 5-star with strong praise; older reviews (2008-2014) show more variance and critical detail. Recency bias favors current operations.
• One negative review (2018-06-11) mentions 'Michael Walsh' being rude, suggesting possible team member issue distinct from owner Dennis Walsh.

This score is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial review volume (37 usable reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions. However, the pricing dimension should be weighted cautiously—while HIGH confidence, it reflects a deliberate business strategy rather than poor value, and customer satisfaction remains strong despite cost concerns. The isolated negative experiences from 2012-2013 appear to be historical and do not reflect current operations based on recent review patterns.

Schevan Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and fair pricing across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for workmanship quality and reasonable rates. However, professionalism scores are tempered by three significant negative reviews documenting poor communication, scheduling inflexibility, and rudeness—issues that directly contradict the overwhelmingly positive majority. Project completion is solid with evidence of timely work and follow-through, though some scheduling friction is evident. The contractor excels at problem-solving and knowledge but shows inconsistent interpersonal professionalism that creates risk for certain customer interactions.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Review dated 2017-06-18 appears twice with nearly identical text (one with timestamp 13:14:43, one with 00:00:00), suggesting possible duplicate or artificially inflated review count.
• SIGNIFICANT PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Three 1-star reviews (2021-05-26, 2018-11-16, 2017-09-07) document dismissive communication, scheduling inflexibility, and anger/rudeness. These are not isolated complaints but reveal a pattern of poor customer service interactions that directly contradicts the 5-star majority.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2008-2017). Only 3 reviews from 2018 onward, with the most recent negative review from 2021. Limited recent data to assess current service quality.
• ONE REVIEW UNUSABLE: Review dated 2017-01-31 contains only 'unknown' as text and provides no evaluable content.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution: while technical competence and pricing appear genuinely strong based on consistent evidence across 11+ mentions, the professionalism dimension is compromised by documented negative interactions that suggest inconsistent customer service quality depending on circumstances. The score reflects a contractor with excellent technical skills but interpersonal reliability concerns that may not be captured by the overall average.

PDG Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism and responsiveness being the most frequently cited strengths — particularly their willingness to respond to emergencies on nights, weekends, and holidays. Pricing is repeatedly described as competitive, reasonable, and lower than competitors, with one reviewer noting they were charged $200 less than six other quoted companies. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished on time, within quoted scope, and with thorough cleanup. However, one serious 1-star review from 2019 alleges that the owner replaced a broken pipe with a different pipe and was evasive when confronted, which is a significant integrity concern that meaningfully suppresses scores across all dimensions. The experience dimension is well-supported by specific accounts of accurate diagnosis, efficient repairs, and honest advice that saved customers money.

• ONE SERIOUS INTEGRITY ALLEGATION: A 1-star review from 2019-02-09 alleges that the owner (Ken Tay) replaced a defective valve that caused a basement flood, then substituted a different pipe when asked to return the broken one, and was evasive about it. The reviewer claims photographic and video evidence and a second plumber's confirmation of the pipe discrepancy. This is a direct allegation of dishonesty and potential fraud by the business owner, not merely a service complaint. This has been factored into scoring, particularly for professionalism and experience.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Of the 18 reviews, only 2 are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2022). The majority of reviews are from 2014–2019, meaning the current state of the business may not be well-represented. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind.
• REVIEW VOLUME LIMITATION: With only 18 total reviews spanning approximately 10 years, the dataset is relatively small. The single negative review carries disproportionate weight given the low total volume.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, writing style, and specificity. Named technicians (Ken, Rual) appear consistently across independent reviews, lending authenticity. No suspicious patterns of identical phrasing or generic praise were identified.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy given strong mention counts across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution due to a credible and serious integrity allegation against the owner, the age of most reviews, and the relatively small total review pool.

A.D. White Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions from every reviewer. Professionalism is the most thoroughly documented dimension, with all five reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous manner, and prompt communication — including same-day emergency scheduling and proactive ETA notices. Pricing is described as reasonable, fair, and competitive across four reviews, with no mention of hidden charges or billing surprises. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs finished quickly, thoroughly, and with follow-up estimates offered proactively. Experience and workmanship are highlighted in multiple reviews, with one reviewer describing Andy as a 'master craftsman' and another noting he diagnosed and resolved a stubborn drain issue within 30 minutes. The primary limitation of this score is the small review pool of only five reviews, and the fact that three of the five are more than two years old, with two dating back to 2017 and 2018.

• Only 5 reviews total — score confidence is limited by small sample size and should be interpreted cautiously.
• Two reviews (2017-08-30 and 2018-01-11) are more than 5 years old and were given reduced weight in scoring. They may not reflect current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language suggesting authenticity, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• No reviews mention any negative experience, callback issue, or unresolved problem — absence of criticism is noted but not treated as evidence of perfection per scoring rules.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the consistent and specific nature of reviewer feedback, but should be treated with caution due to the very small review pool of 5 and the age of several reviews, which limits statistical confidence in the result.

OHA Home Service demonstrates consistently strong professionalism across a large volume of reviews, with technicians frequently praised for punctuality, courtesy, clear communication, and protective measures in customers' homes. Experience and workmanship scores are similarly solid, with many reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics, thorough explanations, and quality installations across HVAC, plumbing, fireplace, and ductwork services. Project completion is generally positive — most jobs are described as finished correctly and on time — but is tempered by a notable cluster of negative reviews citing a misdiagnosis with no refund, a part never ordered, scheduling failures, and at least one case of unresolved follow-through. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praise fair or competitive pricing, a meaningful number of negative reviews specifically allege significant overcharging for parts and labor, with documented price comparisons showing markups of hundreds to thousands of dollars. The overall score reflects a company with genuine strengths in service delivery but a recurring and credible pattern of pricing complaints that cannot be dismissed.

• PRICING CONCERN — CREDIBLE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 5) allege significant overcharging for parts and labor, with specific dollar comparisons provided. One reviewer documented a $2,457 discrepancy vs. retail + local installer cost. Another paid $650+ for parts worth under $40. A third was quoted $1,800 for a part that cost $485 elsewhere. A fourth cited a $350 chimney sweep at nearly 4x competitors. These are specific, detailed, and independently corroborated — not vague complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer reported a misdiagnosis costing $800+, a promised refund that was denied after escalation to owners, and a part that was never ordered despite being told it was. This represents a significant failure of follow-through and accountability.
• SCHEDULING/COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer reported being lost in the scheduling system twice — not added to the schedule after being told they would be, and not found when they called to confirm. This is a direct project completion and professionalism concern.
• REVIEW REMOVAL ALLEGATION: One reviewer (1-star, May 2025) explicitly states OHA deleted a previous negative review and vows to keep reposting. This raises a platform integrity concern and suggests the visible review pool may be artificially skewed positive.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Six reviews contained no text — only a star rating (mix of 1-star and 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2016 to June 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2021 onward. Older reviews (2016–2019) predominantly feature the founder Brendan personally and reflect a smaller, owner-operated business. The company appears to have scaled significantly, and some negative patterns (pricing, misdiagnosis, scheduling) are concentrated in more recent years (2022–2025), suggesting possible quality control challenges during growth.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: A small number of very brief 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Seth truly exceeded all expectations!' with no context) are consistent with padding patterns. However, the majority of positive reviews contain specific technician names, job descriptions, and situational detail, which reduces overall fake review concern. Flagged as minor.
• OWNER RESPONSIVENESS — POSITIVE NOTE: At least two reviews document the owner or management proactively reaching out to resolve complaints, issuing refunds, and paying for competitor services. This partially offsets some negative signals but does not eliminate the underlying service failures.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (109 reviews, spanning 2016–2025) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, consumers should weight the pricing dimension carefully, as the negative pricing reviews are specific, detailed, and independently corroborated, and the possibility of suppressed negative reviews (per one reviewer's allegation) means the true score may be modestly lower than reported.

Blinkhorn Plumbing has a long and mixed track record spanning over 15 years of reviews. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — many reviewers praise punctuality, friendliness, and communication — but several serious complaints about being hours late with no communication, rude phone staff, and failure to follow up drag the score down meaningfully. Pricing is a consistent tension point: while many reviewers found prices fair or competitive, multiple reviewers felt charges were excessive relative to the time and effort involved, and one reviewer noted costs exceeded the estimate without prior communication. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — there are multiple documented cases of work that had to be redone multiple times, a hot water heater installed backwards that was never fully corrected after six visits, a misdiagnosed radiator job that caused significant property damage, and a leaking toilet that was loose after installation — these are serious failures that substantially lower the completion score despite many positive simple-job completions. Experience scores similarly mixed: technicians are frequently praised as knowledgeable, but the pattern of repeated callbacks, incorrect installations, and misdiagnoses across multiple independent reviewers indicates inconsistency in skill level across the team.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most substantive reviews dating from 2006–2014. Only 3 reviews are from 2018 or later, and those include two serious 1-star complaints. The WW Score may not reflect current service quality.
• UNKNOWN REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain only the text 'unknown', 'see above', or single generic words like 'Wonderful' or 'Excellent' with no usable detail. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURES NOTED: At least 3 independent reviews describe multi-visit failures to fix the same problem, including a hot water heater installed backwards (6 visits, never resolved), a toilet installed loose and leaking (2 return visits), and a radiator misassessment causing major property damage. These are not minor complaints.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly noted that Blinkhorn may not hold a valid DC plumbing license and appeared to perform unpermitted work in DC. A separate review also references a permit not being pulled at time of installation. This is a potential legal and safety flag.
• INCONSISTENT TEAM QUALITY: Multiple reviews distinguish positively between Walter Blinkhorn (owner/phone) and the field technicians, suggesting quality varies significantly depending on which crew member is dispatched.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While several reviews are generic, the overall corpus shows sufficient variation in language, detail, and sentiment — including credible negative reviews — to suggest the review set is largely authentic.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (70 total) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable in terms of data volume; however, the heavy skew toward older reviews (most from 2006–2015) and the presence of serious unresolved complaints in more recent reviews means this score should be treated with caution as a predictor of current service quality.