Find Nearby Plumbers In Boston, Massachusetts

Green Tech demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and quality workmanship across 19+ reviews. However, pricing is a severe and recurring weakness, with 8 reviews explicitly criticizing aggressive pricing, price gouging, non-competitive quotes, and assessment fees that appear designed to extract maximum value from urgent situations. The company excels at execution but fundamentally undermines customer trust through pricing practices that multiple customers describe as exploitative. Recent reviews (2024) show no improvement in pricing complaints, suggesting this is a structural business model issue rather than an isolated problem.

• CRITICAL: Pricing dimension shows stark polarization — older reviews (2021-2022) rarely mention price, while recent reviews (2023-2024) consistently cite price gouging and unfair practices. This suggests either a recent business model shift toward aggressive pricing or increased customer awareness of overcharging.
• Assessment/consultation fees ($100-$160) appear to be used as a revenue stream rather than a genuine diagnostic tool, with customers reporting non-competitive quotes afterward and difficulty obtaining written follow-up.
• Multiple customers report inability to obtain receipts or clear price breakdowns, raising transparency and documentation concerns.
• One review (2024-04-10) uses extreme language ('SCAM ARTISTS', 'fleece us') and alleges intentional misdiagnosis to generate repeat service calls — this is a serious allegation but appears isolated and unsubstantiated by other reviews.
• Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2021-2022 period; recent reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly negative or mixed, suggesting declining customer satisfaction.
• No fake review patterns detected — negative reviews contain specific complaints with detail; positive reviews cite named technicians (Dave R., Hector) and specific services.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and execution are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the score is significantly dragged down by consistent, detailed, and recent pricing complaints (MODERATE confidence on 8 mentions). The sharp deterioration in sentiment from 2022 to 2024 suggests the company's current pricing practices are a material problem for customers, despite excellent technical delivery. Customers should expect high-quality work but should budget significantly above market rates and be prepared to negotiate or seek alternative quotes.

Streeter Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance pattern. Positive reviews (5 of 12) consistently praise rapid emergency response, skilled technicians, and fair pricing on water heater jobs. However, negative reviews (4 of 12) reveal serious systemic issues: chronic punctuality failures, incomplete work (valves not replaced, recurring toilet leaks), dismissive customer service, and high charges for inadequate diagnostics. Professionalism is undermined by documented receptionist rudeness and no-show appointments. Project completion suffers from incomplete repairs and failure to follow through on callbacks. The company excels in emergency response speed but fails in reliability, thoroughness, and customer respect.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2023; most negative reviews are from 2014-2020. However, negative reviews span a 6-year period (2014-2020), suggesting chronic systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviews cite identical problems—incomplete work (valves not replaced, wax ring failure after 3 months), rude receptionist, and poor follow-through. This is not fake review activity but rather consistent operational failures.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 2 reviews explicitly document incomplete repairs (water heater valves not replaced; toilet wax ring failure 3 months later). This is a serious quality control issue.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CRISIS: 3 reviews specifically mention rude/unhelpful receptionist and poor communication. This appears to be a persistent staffing problem.
• PUNCTUALITY FAILURE: 2 reviews document severe appointment delays (2.5+ hours late, no-show with no apology). This contradicts the positive reviews' praise for speed on emergency calls.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the WW Score of 68.2 reflects the mixed data, the polarization is extreme and suggests Streeter's quality is highly inconsistent—excellent for emergency water heater replacements but unreliable for complex diagnostics, follow-up work, and routine appointments. The company's receptionist and scheduling reliability are significant weaknesses. Customers should expect good emergency response but should verify all work is complete and consider getting a second opinion on diagnostic charges.

Wellesley Plumbing & Heating shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2014–2024. While technical expertise and workmanship are generally praised (80/100), the company struggles with professionalism (65/100)—particularly responsiveness, scheduling reliability, and follow-through. Project completion is the weakest dimension (62/100), with multiple reviews citing forgotten tasks, delays, wrong parts, and poor callback management. Pricing is moderately fair (72.5/100) but occasionally perceived as high relative to alternatives. Recent reviews (2024, 2021) are notably more negative than older ones, suggesting potential service degradation.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2024, 2021) are 1-star ratings citing poor responsiveness and incomplete work. Older reviews (2014–2018) are more positive. This suggests service quality may have declined significantly.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, delayed scheduling, and poor follow-up communication. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Three reviews document incomplete work (forgotten filter change, wrong faucet delivered three times, incomplete boiler diagnosis). This is a critical red flag.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY: One 2021 review states owner Robert Lynch never returned calls or emails over two weeks regarding a service complaint.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company receives both 5-star and 1-star ratings, suggesting highly variable technician performance or service standards.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While based on 11 reviews with adequate mention counts, the sharp decline in recent ratings and documented systemic issues with responsiveness and project completion suggest the current WW Score may overstate actual reliability. Prospective customers should prioritize recent reviews and verify scheduling/callback procedures before engaging.

Jack Welch Plumbing exhibits highly inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While positive reviews consistently praise responsiveness, quick service, and reasonable pricing, negative reviews reveal critical failures in appointment reliability, follow-through, and communication. The company demonstrates strong technical capability and customer service when engaged, but systematic problems with no-shows, missed callbacks, and incomplete problem diagnosis significantly undermine trust. The professionalism score is dragged down by 8 explicit mentions of missed appointments, no-shows, or failure to return calls. Project completion suffers from incomplete diagnostics and abandoned follow-up. This is a company with capable technicians but serious operational and accountability issues.

• CRITICAL: 8 reviews (33% of total) report missed appointments, no-shows, or failure to return calls—a systemic professionalism problem
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Multiple reviews describe incorrect parts installed multiple times (2013-11-25 review: 4+ incorrect parts over 15+ days), suggesting diagnostic or technical knowledge gaps despite other positive technical reviews
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: 2022-11-30 review alleges sale of refurbished furnace as new with false registration—serious integrity concern requiring verification
• DAMAGE INCIDENT: 2019-10-30 review reports plumber broke garbage disposal during service and caused additional damage
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2012-2022 (older), but recent reviews (2021-2022) show mixed results with both 5-star and 1-star ratings, suggesting ongoing inconsistency
• INCOMPLETE REVIEW: 2021-04-09 review text cuts off mid-sentence ('mkrnjng'), reducing reliability of that data point

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to high operational inconsistency: while the company demonstrates genuine capability and customer care in successful engagements, the frequency of appointment failures and communication breakdowns (33% of reviews) represents a material risk factor that outweighs positive technical reviews. The score reflects a company in operational crisis despite having competent staff.

This contractor exhibits highly inconsistent performance with a stark divide between positive and negative experiences. Positive reviews (8 five-star ratings) consistently praise expertise, responsiveness, and quality workmanship, particularly from Dwayne/Green Team Drains. However, negative reviews (5 one-star ratings) reveal serious systemic issues: failure to complete jobs after collecting diagnostic fees, unresponsiveness to callbacks, property damage without accountability, and alleged sabotage. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reports of abandoned work, extended delays (1+ months), and incomplete repairs. Professionalism scores are dragged down by communication failures, unprofessional office staff, and documented instances of negligence. The company appears to deliver excellent service selectively but fails catastrophically in other cases, suggesting inconsistent quality control or potential issues with accountability.

• CRITICAL: Five 1-star reviews document serious project completion failures including abandoned work after diagnostic fees collected, month-long delays without callbacks, and property damage with refusal to accept liability.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark polarization between 5-star reviews praising 'Dwayne' and 1-star reviews describing the same company as a 'scam.' This suggests either highly variable service quality or potential issues with accountability across different technicians/situations.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews document the company collecting fees then refusing to complete work or accept responsibility for damage caused. One review explicitly mentions office staff instructing technicians to 'cover their backs' to avoid liability.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most negative reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent), while many positive reviews are from 2019-2022 (older). This suggests potential service quality decline over time.
• PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: One review alleges sabotage and unprofessional behavior following a pricing disagreement, and another documents a technician walking out mid-job without explanation.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 62.8 reflects the mixed data, the underlying pattern suggests this contractor is unreliable and potentially high-risk: recent reviews show systematic failures in project completion and accountability, with multiple customers reporting abandoned work and refusal to honor commitments. The positive reviews, while genuine, do not offset the severity of documented failures in critical dimensions. Recommend requesting references from recent projects and written guarantees before engaging.

Mike McKeon demonstrates exceptional professionalism, responsiveness, and technical expertise across most completed projects, with 11 reviews praising his courteous demeanor, prompt communication, and skilled workmanship. However, a critical 1-star review from May 2024 alleges fraud involving a $10,000 deposit for a heating system installation that never occurred, with law enforcement investigation underway. This severe allegation of non-completion and financial misconduct directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive historical record and significantly depresses the project completion score. The WW Score reflects this serious credibility conflict: strong performance on professionalism and experience is substantially offset by evidence of catastrophic project failure and potential criminal conduct.

• CRITICAL FRAUD ALLEGATION: One review (May 2024) alleges Mike McKeon accepted $10,000 deposit for heating system installation, cashed check on 3/19/24, failed to show on scheduled 3/21/24 date, and has avoided contact since March 2024. Reviewer reports law enforcement investigation for fraud, larceny, and forgery. This is a serious allegation that cannot be ignored despite positive historical reviews.
• TEMPORAL ANOMALY: 12 of 13 reviews are from 2020-2023 (older than 12 months). Only 1 recent review exists (May 2024), which is the fraud allegation. The positive reviews predate this alleged incident by months to years, suggesting possible change in business conduct or integrity.
• PATTERN CONCERN: The positive reviews, while detailed and specific, are all 5-star ratings with no critical feedback across a 4-year span (2020-2023). The sudden emergence of a severe fraud allegation in 2024 raises questions about whether business practices deteriorated or whether earlier reviews reflect selective reporting.
• CREDIBILITY CONFLICT: The stark contrast between 12 glowing reviews and 1 serious fraud allegation with law enforcement involvement creates fundamental uncertainty about which narrative reflects current business reality.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 62.8 reflects strong historical professionalism and expertise, it is substantially undermined by a credible-appearing fraud allegation from May 2024 involving law enforcement investigation. The score cannot reliably predict future performance given this serious recent allegation. Potential customers should independently verify the status of the alleged fraud investigation before engaging this contractor.