Find Nearby Plumbers In Boston, Massachusetts

Greater Boston Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 18 reviews. Pricing is a notable strength, with 11 reviews explicitly commending fair, reasonable, and transparent quotes—a significant differentiator from competitors. Project completion is solid with 15 mentions of timely work and follow-through, though three early reviews (2016, 2014) document callback failures that damaged trust. Technical expertise is well-regarded across 8 reviews, with customers praising problem-solving and knowledge. The company's performance is notably stronger in recent years (2014 onward) compared to isolated callback failures in 2016.

• Three reviews with rating 0.0 (2013-03-28, 2013-02-17, 2013-01-30, 2012-10-10, 2012-06-12) appear to be data entry errors or system glitches—these are positive reviews with 0-star ratings, creating inconsistency. Treated as valid positive feedback but flagged for data quality.
• Two nearly identical negative reviews from 2016-07-19 (same date, same complaint about no callback) suggest either duplicate submission or two separate customers with identical experience. Both describe failure to follow up on estimates.
• Two reviews with minimal/placeholder text ('unknown' and '.') rated 5.0 cannot be scored on any dimension—excluded from analysis.
• Recency concern: 19 of 31 reviews are from 2013-2015 (8+ years old). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Recent performance cannot be fully assessed.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for assessing historical performance (2013–2015 era) with HIGH confidence, but current reliability is LIMITED due to sparse recent reviews and a 7+ year gap in data. The callback failures in 2016 are concerning and unresolved by recent feedback. Recommend requesting current customer references before engaging.

William demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently fast response times, excellent communication, and courteous demeanor across 18 reviews. His pricing is competitive and transparent in most cases, though some customers noted lack of upfront cost clarity. Project completion shows solid execution but is tempered by two significant negative reviews citing unresolved callbacks and durability issues lasting only 3 weeks. His technical experience is highly regarded with customers praising skill, detail orientation, and quality workmanship across plumbing and heating projects. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong fundamentals undermined by reliability concerns in follow-up service.

• Two negative reviews (2018-07-03 and 2018-06-08) indicate serious project completion failures: one customer reported a 1-month+ delay in addressing a failed repair with poor communication; another reported complete callback failure after 2 weeks. These directly contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative.
• Review from 2019-06-16 (1-star) alleges use of substandard parts and improper payment practices (checks to personal name rather than company). This is a significant integrity concern not addressed in other reviews.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (15 of 21 reviews predate 2019). Only 2 reviews are from 2024 and 2021. Recent performance data is limited.
• The 2018-07-03 review reveals a pattern of poor callback responsiveness and lack of transparency about job limitations, which conflicts with the 'responsive' narrative in positive reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and legitimate criticisms in negative reviews.

This score should be treated with moderate caution: while professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by 12+ mentions each, the project completion score is significantly undermined by documented failures in callback responsiveness and durability, and most data is 3+ years old, limiting insight into current performance.

Hathaway Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in project completion and experience. The company excels at responsiveness, technical knowledge, and reliable follow-through on jobs, as evidenced by numerous long-term customer relationships spanning 15+ years. However, pricing presents a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing undisclosed service fees, hourly rate discrepancies, and inflated parts charges that undermine trust. Professionalism scores are solid but tempered by documented communication failures in older reviews, though recent reviews show improved responsiveness. The company's reputation is built on honest workmanship and fair dealing, though pricing transparency remains a concern.

• Pricing inconsistency flagged: Review from 2020 reports quoted $130/hour but billed $150/hour, and parts marked $30 billed as $87. Review from 2024 mentions undisclosed service fee. This pattern suggests potential pricing transparency issues.
• Communication responsiveness shows temporal variation: Older reviews (2019, 2020) report poor callback performance and unresponsiveness; recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022) consistently praise quick response. This suggests either company improvement or selection bias in recent reviews.
• One review (2014) describes incompetent diagnosis and charged $50 for unsuccessful visit, suggesting occasional quality control issues with field staff.
• Review from 2023 uses unusually emphatic language ('100x 5 star ratings', 'breath of fresh air') that borders on promotional tone, though it does provide specific technical details about diagnostic approach.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 15 reviews with consistent data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence in three of four categories. However, the pricing dimension warrants caution—customers should explicitly confirm all fees and hourly rates in writing before service, as multiple reviews document billing discrepancies.

J&B Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3. Professionalism is a clear strength (88.6), with consistent praise for courteous, friendly, and respectful technicians across 10 reviews. Project completion is solid (87.5) with multiple accounts of rapid response, same-day service, and work completed on time and on budget. Experience scores well (85.0) with explicit mentions of quality workmanship, technical knowledge, and problem-solving. However, pricing shows more variability (68.3): while many reviews praise fair and reasonable rates, one detailed 1-star review alleges significant time-padding and overcharging ($500 for a simple pipe cap), and another notes difficulty reaching the company. The company's responsiveness is generally excellent but inconsistent communication access is a documented weakness.

• One 1-star review (2024-02-11) contains a detailed allegation of time-padding and overcharging ($500 for cutting and capping a pipe, with claims of wasted truck time). This directly contradicts the 'fair pricing' narrative in other reviews and suggests potential billing practice concerns.
• One 3-star review (2018-01-04) explicitly states difficulty reaching the company: 'very hard to get a hold of' and 'usually have to call multiple times.' This is a documented communication/responsiveness issue that conflicts with other reviews praising quick callbacks.
• Review dates are heavily skewed toward older reviews (2014-2018): 7 of 12 reviews are from 2018 or earlier. Only 2 reviews are from 2024 and 2022. Recent performance may differ from historical reputation.
• Several reviews use generic superlative language ('the best plumber!!!', 'excellent job!!', 'highly recommend!!!') with multiple exclamation marks, though most also include specific details (same-day service, reasonable pricing, professional demeanor) that support credibility. No strong evidence of fake reviews, but some reviews lack specificity.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (5-10 mentions each). However, the score should be interpreted with caution: the company shows genuine strengths in professionalism and project completion, but the pricing dimension is contested (fair pricing praised in most reviews but contradicted by a detailed overcharging allegation), and communication accessibility is a documented weakness. The heavy skew toward reviews older than 6 years (58% of reviews from 2018 or earlier) means current performance may differ. Prospective customers should verify current pricing practices and communication responsiveness before engaging.

Scott Robillard demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication across multiple reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented, with clients praising problem-solving ability and industry knowledge. However, pricing feedback is mixed—while most clients report fair value, one review alleges unnecessary upselling and component replacement rather than repair. Project completion shows a significant weakness: one client never received a promised estimate after an initial consultation, representing a serious follow-through failure. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong fundamentals undermined by isolated but material lapses in project delivery and pricing transparency.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 8 reviews are older than 5 years (2019 or earlier). Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2022. Recent performance data is limited.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Two negative reviews (2-star ratings) both involve pricing concerns—one alleges unnecessary upselling/component replacement, the other involves a failed estimate delivery. This pattern warrants caution.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: October 2017 review documents a critical failure—client took time off work for estimate consultation, Scott promised to deliver estimate, but never followed up despite friendly reminder. This directly contradicts the 'highly responsive' narrative in other reviews.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: 6 of 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language. The two 2-star reviews are substantive and specific (not generic complaints), suggesting the positive reviews may overrepresent satisfied customers while dissatisfied customers are underrepresented in the sample.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by multiple recent and older reviews, the pricing and project completion dimensions are undermined by documented failures (estimate non-delivery, alleged upselling) and heavy reliance on older reviews. The score reflects strong historical performance but may not accurately represent current reliability, particularly regarding follow-through on non-emergency work and pricing transparency.

Jordan's Plumbing and Heating demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1. The contractor excels in professionalism (87.5), with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, courtesy, and communication across 156 reviews. Project completion is solid at 84.0 based on 138 mentions, with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction. Technical experience scores 85.5 across 89 mentions, reflecting strong workmanship and problem-solving abilities. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 78.0 (42 mentions), with mixed feedback—some customers praise fair pricing and value, while others note costs are high or shocking, though most acknowledge quality justifies expense. The contractor's primary weakness is inconsistent follow-up and communication in a small subset of cases, which significantly impacts trust.

• CRITICAL: Three severe negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2021-10-21, 2021-04-15, 2017-02-13, and 2016-12-13) allege deposit fraud, non-completion of work, and months of non-responsiveness. These are not isolated complaints but describe systematic abandonment of projects and failure to return customer funds. These allegations are serious and materially contradict the overwhelmingly positive majority.
• One additional 1-star review (2021-09-22) mentions poor communication requiring customers to chase the contractor, though work quality was acknowledged as good.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2016–2021 (older than 2 years). However, the 2021-04-15 review is recent enough to suggest potential ongoing issues. The 2024 reviews are uniformly positive, which could indicate either improvement or selection bias in recent reviews.
• Pricing dimension shows polarization: Some reviews explicitly state 'fair price' or '50% less than competitors,' while others call costs 'shocking' or 'expensive.' This suggests pricing may vary significantly by project type or customer expectations are misaligned.
• Pattern detected: Negative reviews often mention lack of responsiveness and communication breakdown after deposit or initial contact, whereas positive reviews emphasize quick response and follow-through. This suggests a potential operational weakness in project management or follow-up systems.
• One review (2018-03-11) notes a $175 charge for a 5-minute service restart, flagged as 'pricey,' suggesting possible service call pricing concerns.
• Multiple reviews mention 'no comment,' 'N/A,' or blank text fields, indicating some reviews lack substantive detail, though these are rated 5.0 stars and do not materially affect scoring.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with CAUTION. While the score is supported by HIGH confidence across three dimensions (professionalism, project completion, experience) based on 150+ mentions each, the presence of credible fraud allegations in multiple reviews—including claims of deposit theft, project abandonment, and months of non-responsiveness—introduces material risk that is not fully captured in the numerical score. The overwhelmingly positive majority (240+ five-star reviews) contrasts sharply with a small but serious subset of allegations suggesting systematic misconduct. Prospective customers should independently verify current business standing with the BBB, licensing board, and attorney general before engaging, and should avoid paying deposits upfront. The score reflects historical performance but does not adequately weight the severity and pattern of non-completion allegations.