Find Nearby Plumbers In Beverly, Massachusetts

Emile (Drain All) demonstrates consistently strong performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is exemplary, with six reviews explicitly praising punctuality, pleasant demeanor, communication, and cleanliness. Project completion is flawless—all seven reviews confirm work was finished completely and promptly, with no callbacks or follow-up issues mentioned. Pricing receives strong marks across four reviews, with customers noting competitive rates, transparency, and excellent value relative to competitors. Technical skill is evident in five reviews describing successful drain snaking, problem diagnosis, and efficient execution. The contractor's willingness to accommodate non-standard payment arrangements and emergency weekend service further reinforces reliability.

• All seven reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback—this is unusual and warrants caution. However, reviews span 10 years (2004–2014) with varied specific details (pricing amounts, timeframes, problem types, geographic context), which suggests authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• Review dates are significantly outdated: most reviews are 10+ years old (2012–2014), with one from 2004. No reviews from the past 5 years. Current service quality cannot be verified from this dataset.
• Limited sample size (7 reviews) means confidence, while marked HIGH, is based on a relatively small population. Additional recent reviews would strengthen reliability.

This WW Score of 88.2 is trustworthy based on consistency and specificity across reviews, but should be treated as historical performance only—the oldest review is from 2004 and most are from 2012–2014, making current operational status uncertain without recent customer feedback.

Moore Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning over a decade, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and technical skill. Pricing is frequently cited as fair or better than competitors, with multiple reviewers noting they paid significantly less than quotes from other companies. However, there are 9 negative reviews (ratings of 1-star) that meaningfully drag down scores across all dimensions — these include serious complaints about ghosting/no-shows, aggressive owner behavior, sloppy workmanship causing property damage, unresolved repeat issues, and lack of accountability. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple credible accounts of abandoned appointments, unresolved recurring problems, and failure to follow through. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths but a documented pattern of service failures that cannot be ignored.

• 9 reviews rated 1-star out of 107 total (~8.4%) — these contain specific, credible, and detailed complaints about no-shows, ghosting, aggressive behavior, property damage from sloppy work, and unresolved recurring issues. These are not generic and should be weighted seriously.
• 12 reviews contain no text at all (blank body, rating only) — these provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several very short reviews ('Great service', 'happy', 'Fantastic', 'unknown') provide minimal signal and were treated as low-information data points.
• One review (2024-08-12, 1-star) explicitly states it was posted on the wrong company — this was excluded from scoring.
• The review base spans from 2007 to 2025, meaning a significant portion of reviews are more than 1 year old. Reviews from 2025 (approximately 30 reviews) were given higher weight as they reflect current service quality.
• Multiple reviews reference 'Duane' as a solo operator, while more recent reviews reference 'Jordan', 'Steven', 'Bert', 'Chris', 'Trevor', and 'Meghan', suggesting the business has grown or changed structure over time. Scores from earlier Duane-era reviews may not fully reflect current team performance.
• One review (2025-04-10, 5-star) references a prior negative experience with an extra charge that management later refunded — this suggests a billing dispute was resolved but also confirms that overcharging occurred initially.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. However, the high volume of 5-star reviews with no text warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning many years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but users should note that the 1-star reviews contain credible and specific complaints about professionalism and project completion that meaningfully limit the score ceiling.

Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation. The reviews present sharply contradictory evidence: one 1-star review citing rude service and billing irregularities, and one 5-star review praising punctuality, follow-through, and fair pricing. Professionalism scores are heavily polarized (rude vs. professional), while pricing and completion show moderate agreement on fairness and delivery. The extreme divergence and minimal sample size prevent confident scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME REVIEW DIVERGENCE: Reviews are contradictory (1-star vs. 5-star) with no middle ground, suggesting possible service inconsistency or different customer expectations.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2018 (6+ years old), limiting relevance to current service quality. Only the 2023 review reflects recent performance.
• SAMPLE SIZE TOO SMALL: With only 2 reviews, confidence factors are capped at 0.4 (2/5), making all dimension scores unreliable.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. 3 minimum required). The extreme contradiction between reviews and age of one review further undermines reliability. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across nearly every dimension assessed. Professionalism was severely lacking: the technician was described as rude, management was unreachable after multiple calls and messages, and the company allegedly made dishonest statements to the Better Business Bureau. Project completion scored very low because the toilet installation failed within 6 months and the company refused to honor any reasonable resolution, ultimately forcing the customer to hire a competitor at full cost. Experience also scored poorly, as the competing plumber confirmed that the installed toilet system was incompatible with the home — indicating a fundamental workmanship error. Pricing data was entirely absent from the review and could not be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All scores are based on a single 1-star review from 2013, making them over 10 years old. Recency is very poor and this data may not reflect current business practices.
• The review is detailed and specific, reducing fake review concern, but the extreme negativity from a single source should be interpreted cautiously without corroborating reviews.
• No pricing dimension data was available — this dimension was excluded from all calculations.

This score is highly unreliable due to being based on a single review that is over a decade old — treat all dimension scores as directional indicators only and not as a trustworthy assessment of current contractor quality.