Find Nearby Plumbers In Haverhill, Massachusetts

Drain King demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength (85.2), with extensive evidence of punctuality, courteous technicians, and clean work practices across 187 mentions. Project completion is solid (84.6) with most jobs finished efficiently and on-time. Experience scores well (83.4) with technicians demonstrating strong diagnostic and problem-solving skills. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (73.1), with recurring complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and price increases. While the majority of reviews are highly positive, the pricing concerns and scattered negative experiences prevent a higher overall score.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews cite significant price increases (e.g., $165→$370 first hour), unexpected charges beyond quotes, and complaints of overcharging. This is the most consistent negative theme.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While most reviews are 5-star, there are scattered 1-star reviews citing rude technicians, incomplete work, no-shows, and poor follow-up. Some appear to involve specific technicians (e.g., Santo, Richie Shaw) rather than systemic issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 15-20 reviews from March-June 2025 are extremely generic with identical phrasing ('professional,' 'efficient,' 'highly recommend,' 'no mess'), minimal detail, and suspiciously clustered dates. These lack specificity typical of genuine reviews and may inflate scores artificially.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Three nearly identical reviews from David Cioto (March 9, 2024) appear to be duplicates or near-duplicates, suggesting possible review manipulation.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text or only ratings, making them unusable for scoring but inflating review count.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive 5-star; older reviews (2010-2018) show more balanced criticism, suggesting either genuine improvement or review curation.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple service areas (Whittier CA, Haverhill MA, NH, Plaistow, Fridley MN), suggesting either multiple franchises or inconsistent branding, which may explain service quality variance.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for overall assessment but should be interpreted cautiously: the HIGH confidence is supported by large mention counts across all dimensions, but the score is artificially elevated by a cluster of suspicious generic reviews from early 2025 and potentially inflated by review curation. The pricing dimension (73.1) is the most trustworthy negative finding, backed by specific, detailed complaints spanning multiple years. Prospective customers should expect strong professionalism and technical competence but should obtain detailed written quotes and clarify all pricing terms upfront before engaging services.

Matt's Comeau Plumbing and Heating demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on four recent reviews (all from 2023-2024). Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of friendly demeanor, cleanliness, responsiveness, and reliability across all reviews. Pricing is explicitly noted as fair and honest in three reviews with no complaints about costs. Project completion is evidenced by timely work, quick turnaround, and successful installations across multiple job types. Experience is reflected in positive comments about quality workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, the small sample size (4 reviews) limits confidence in these scores.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) — scores should be treated as preliminary and may shift with additional reviews
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — while not necessarily fake, this uniformity limits ability to assess weaknesses or validate scores through contrasting perspectives
• No reviews older than 1 year, which is positive for recency but further reduces sample diversity

This WW Score of 89.3 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and lack of critical feedback; while the reviews are recent and specific, a minimum of 8-10 reviews would be needed to establish HIGH confidence in this score.

Baldini Plumbing & HVAC has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, responsiveness, punctuality, and technical skill across plumbing and HVAC work. Pricing is frequently cited as fair, competitive, or below competing quotes, and many reviewers note transparent estimates with final costs matching or coming in under quote. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including a State of Massachusetts Plumbers' Board fine for a safety violation (live 240V wire left exposed), a botched toilet replacement, a misrepresented HVAC installation in a condo, missed appointments without callbacks, a misdiagnosis that cost a customer $175, and a wall damaged and left unrepaired — introduce real concerns about quality control and accountability that prevent top-tier scores. The negative reviews are specific, credible, and span multiple years, indicating these are not isolated incidents. Scores have been conservatively adjusted downward to reflect this pattern of recurring but minority failures.

• 10 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the 'try on a whim and love' review dated 2017-12-13 appears twice with slightly different timestamps). One was treated as a single mention to avoid double-counting.
• One review (2024-08-13, 1-star) is clearly not about service quality — it concerns a 'No Trespassing' sign near a fishing spot. This was excluded from scoring as it does not reflect workmanship or service.
• A State of Massachusetts Plumbers' Board fine (Oct 2023) for leaving a live 240V wire exposed after a water heater installation is a serious safety and competency flag. This is explicitly documented in a 1-star review and materially impacts the experience and project completion scores.
• Multiple negative reviews cite missed appointments with no callback or explanation (2013, 2018, 2019, 2013 condo manager). This is a recurring pattern affecting professionalism score.
• One negative review (2014) alleges belligerent behavior by the owner, harassing emails, and a system installed in violation of condo association rules and manufacturer specs, voiding the warranty. This is a serious project completion and professionalism flag.
• One negative review (2016) alleges wall damage that was never repaired and work that looked worse than before. Another (2016) alleges use of old pipe when new pipe was available and refusal to correct it.
• One negative review (2023) alleges a misdiagnosis — technician Tim failed to identify a burned-out circulator, leaving the customer without heat for two weeks, while another company diagnosed and fixed it in 5 minutes for $200.
• One negative review (2024) alleges poor communication, a botched toilet replacement due to failure to measure, and rude phone staff (Josh) during a no-heat emergency.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Reviews from 2025 (5 reviews) and 2024 (approximately 12 reviews) are given higher weight. The bulk of the review base is from 2013–2019, which may not fully reflect current service quality.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews are generally specific, name individual technicians, and describe distinct job types. The volume and variety of detail across positive reviews is consistent with authentic customer feedback.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset (100+ usable reviews) spanning over 10 years and carries HIGH overall confidence in terms of data volume, but consumers should weigh the documented safety violation, recurring missed-appointment complaints, and specific project failure reports carefully — the score reflects a company with strong typical performance but a non-trivial tail of serious failures.

Merrimack Valley Plumbing receives strong praise from the majority of reviewers for punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and technical knowledge, with many technicians — particularly Anthony and Alex — singled out by name for excellent service. However, several serious negative reviews significantly temper the overall picture: one detailed 1-star review documents multiple code violations, permit failures, safety oversights, and dishonesty during a boiler installation, while other negative reviews cite no-shows, cancellations, and allegations of equipment sabotage. Pricing drew mixed signals — one reviewer praised it as cheap and fair, another explicitly called it pricey, and a third criticized the lack of transparent upfront pricing despite the company advertising 'transparent pricing.' Project completion is similarly mixed, with most jobs described as completed well but one notable case of an incomplete trench refill and the boiler installation riddled with unfinished and defective work. The high volume of blank 5-star reviews with no text also reduces overall confidence in the aggregate rating.

• 19 out of 57 reviews contain no review text whatsoever — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be used for dimensional scoring and inflate the apparent review count without providing verifiable evidence.
• Several reviews use very brief, generic praise ('Great job!!!!', 'My experience was very good', 'Very thorough, closed the deal') with no specific details. These may be authentic but contribute little evidentiary weight.
• One highly detailed 1-star review (2025-02-28) documents serious code violations, safety hazards, permit fraud, and dishonesty. This is a significant red flag that warrants serious weight despite being a single review.
• A 1-star review (2024-05-24) alleges technicians deliberately sabotage equipment to charge more. While unverified, this is a serious allegation.
• A 1-star review (2023-10-24) describes being canceled twice and a no-show on the day of service, indicating potential reliability issues.
• A 1-star review (2020-09-20) accuses the owner of repeated broken promises and no-shows.
• A 1-star review (2023-01-11) describes a 30-minute upsell attempt, apparent damage to a customer's faucet during removal, and the company refusing accountability via a liability waiver.
• The majority of blank and generic 5-star reviews cluster around the same dates (e.g., 2025-05-10, 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10), which may suggest coordinated or incentivized review activity. Confidence is reduced accordingly for those clusters.
• RECENCY NOTE: All negative reviews span from 2020 to 2025, including a very recent and detailed negative review from February 2025, indicating these are not isolated historical issues.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability due to a sufficient review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of multiple serious negative reviews documenting safety violations and dishonesty, a large number of uninformative blank reviews, and possible clustering of generic 5-star reviews around specific dates.

Nick Savvas and his team receive consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and specifically cited strength — reviewers highlight punctuality, responsiveness, friendliness, and cleanup. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews as fair and reasonable, supporting a solid but moderately confident pricing score. Project completion scores well, with specific mentions of same-day service, callbacks honored, and jobs finished fully including a water heater replacement resolved within hours. Experience is supported by multiple reviewers referencing years of repeat use across diverse job types including heating, cooling, plumbing, and remodeling, indicating reliable and broad technical competence. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the fact that five of seven reviews are more than three years old.

• Only 7 total reviews — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability of the WW Score.
• 5 of 7 reviews are dated 2019 or earlier, with the two most recent from mid-2020. No reviews from the past 3+ years, which raises questions about current service quality and business activity.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While individual reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity warrants mild caution.
• Two reviews from 2018 (same date: 2018-09-17) are very brief and generic with no specific job details, which slightly elevates the possibility of unverified or low-effort reviews for those entries.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool of only 7 reviews, the majority of which are over 3 years old, meaning the score may not accurately reflect the contractor's current performance.

Stark and Cronk demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising responsiveness, knowledge, and courteous staff. However, pricing is a significant weakness—multiple reviews explicitly criticize them as overpriced for new installations and complex projects, though emergency/repair work is deemed fairly priced. Project completion shows mixed results: emergency repairs and straightforward installations are completed promptly and thoroughly, but complex projects have experienced substantial delays (up to 12 months) and quality concerns. The company excels at emergency response and routine work but struggles with pricing transparency and complex project management.

• RECENCY BIAS: 4 of 7 reviews are from 2011–2017 (7+ years old); only 2 recent reviews from 2023 and 2016. Older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Extreme split between 5-star reviews (5 reviews) and 1–2 star reviews (2 reviews) with no middle ground. This suggests either highly variable service quality or different customer segments (emergency vs. new installation).
• PRICING CONTRADICTION: Positive reviews acknowledge high pricing but accept it due to quality; negative reviews reject pricing as unjustified. This suggests pricing is a consistent pain point regardless of satisfaction.
• COMPLEX PROJECT RISK: Two detailed negative reviews cite delays of 6–12 months and failed solutions on complex projects (heating systems, hot water systems). Emergency/simple repairs receive consistent praise.
• OWNER DEPENDENCY: Negative reviews cite Greg Stark's unavailability and slow callback times as a bottleneck for project approval and decision-making.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (7 reviews), significant age of most data (4 reviews >7 years old), and extreme polarization between emergency/simple work (highly rated) and complex installations (poorly rated). The WW Score reflects an average across all work types, but actual experience will vary dramatically depending on project complexity.