Find Nearby Plumbers In Lowell, Massachusetts

Murray Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. On the positive side, several reviewers praise Shaun and Jim for strong technical expertise across complex systems including Victorian-era plumbing, steam-to-gas conversions, and irrigation, and one reviewer highlighted exceptional pricing transparency where the final charge came in well below a competitor's quote. However, three separate 1-star reviews describe serious failures in professionalism and follow-through: a no-show appointment with no explanation, a failure to send a promised written estimate with no further contact, and a recurring drain issue where the customer called back three times and received no response, ultimately slipping and falling. These responsiveness and callback failures significantly drag down both the professionalism and project completion scores. The most recent reviews (2022) are more positive, but the pattern of communication breakdowns across multiple reviewers is a meaningful concern.

• Three reviews (2017, 2018, 2020) describe a consistent pattern of non-responsiveness and failure to follow through — no-show without contact, no estimate sent after promising one, and three unreturned calls after an incomplete repair. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• Review dated 2006 is approximately 18 years old and carries very low relevance to current business quality. It has been noted but given minimal weight.
• Reviews from 2012 and 2013 are over 10 years old and predate the negative reviews; they may not reflect current operations.
• The most recent reviews (2022) are still over 2 years old as of a 2024 evaluation window. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, which limits confidence in current performance.
• One review ('EXCELLENT Job!' from 2016) contains no usable detail and contributes no scoreable data to any dimension.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable number of reviews with substantive detail, but is tempered by the age of most reviews, a significant cluster of serious professionalism and completion failures, and the absence of any reviews from the past 12 months.

Nick and Bottazzi-DePasquale Plumbing have a mixed but somewhat positive track record across the reviews analyzed. Several customers praised responsiveness, emergency availability, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, particularly in reviews from 2021. However, significant negatives weigh down the score: one reviewer reported being completely ghosted after parts were ordered — a serious project completion failure — and another described a rude, pushy plumber with a high surprise show-up fee, raising professionalism and pricing concerns. The non-service driving complaint was excluded from scoring as it does not reflect contracted work. The majority of positive reviews are from 2014 and 2021, with the most damaging reviews falling in 2012 and 2018, suggesting some inconsistency over time.

• RECENCY WARNING: Most reviews are older than 1 year. The most recent reviews are from 2021, and several key reviews (including negative ones) date back to 2012–2018. Score reliability is reduced due to age of data.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: One reviewer (2018) explicitly reported that the contractor stopped responding after parts were ordered and the job was never completed. This is a serious flag for follow-through.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One reviewer (2012) described the plumber as rude, pushy, and physically off-putting. While this is an older review, it is a specific and detailed complaint that cannot be dismissed.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2012) reported a $135 show-up fee with no free estimate and a 'ridiculously high' quote. This directly contradicts positive pricing mentions in other reviews.
• NON-SERVICE REVIEW EXCLUDED: One 1-star review (2019) was about the contractor's driving behavior and contained no information about plumbing services. It was excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a character/conduct flag.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 8 total reviews span nearly a decade. This is insufficient to draw strong conclusions about current service quality. Scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small total review volume, wide date range spanning nearly 10 years, and the presence of at least two specific and credible negative reviews describing serious professionalism, pricing, and project completion failures.

The two positive reviews paint a consistent picture of a responsive, communicative plumber who delivers quality work and leaves job sites clean, with one reviewer specifically praising Sean's transparency around costs and long-term solutions. However, the single negative review raises a meaningful concern about pricing, with a customer describing a $228 charge for a toilet ring replacement as excessive. With only 3 reviews spanning a wide date range (2013–2015), all data is now nearly a decade old, severely limiting reliability. Every dimension is scored conservatively due to the minimal mention count and the age of the reviews.

• All 3 reviews are from 2013–2015 — data is approximately 9–11 years old and should not be considered representative of current service quality.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is the absolute minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and all dimension scores carry very low confidence.
• The negative review references 'Basnett Plumbing' as a name used in pretense of First Rate Plumbing — this may indicate a business name change or rebranding, which could affect review attribution accuracy.
• With only 2 positive and 1 negative review, a single additional negative review could substantially alter the score — treat all scores as highly provisional.

This WW Score should be treated as largely unreliable due to the critically small review sample of 3 reviews, all of which are between 9 and 11 years old, providing no meaningful insight into the contractor's current performance.

Dale Plumbing shows a mixed track record across only 3 reviews. On the positive side, two reviews praise Curtis Dale's responsiveness, cleanliness, communication, and technical knowledge — particularly for a complex PFAS water filtration install. However, the 1-star review is a serious concern: a repair to a kitchen drain pipe failed within two months, suggesting a workmanship deficiency that directly harmed a vulnerable elderly customer. This failed callback situation significantly drags down the project completion and experience scores. With only 3 reviews spanning over a year, confidence in any dimension is low and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

• FAILED REPAIR: One review explicitly documents a repair failure within 2 months on the same issue, with no indication the contractor followed up or offered a remedy — this is a significant project completion red flag.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER IMPACT: The failed repair affected elderly customers who stated they cannot afford another plumber, indicating a potential lack of warranty or callback policy.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. This is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and results in very low statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from August 2023. The PFAS install review is from April 2022, over 2 years old. No reviews from the past 12 months are present in this dataset.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The three reviews are distinct in language, detail level, and rating — no signs of coordinated or fabricated reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — the presence of one serious workmanship failure review among just three total reviews has an outsized negative impact, and no confident conclusions about this contractor's typical performance can be drawn.

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. Two positive reviews highlight polite, professional, and responsive service — including a notably fast technician response time and a thorough heating system installation. However, the one negative review is serious: it describes a billing dispute involving charges for work not performed, a weekend rate applied questionably, and an owner who was explicitly rude and condescending to a customer. The negative review significantly drags down professionalism and pricing scores. With only three reviews spanning several years, no dimension can be scored with high confidence.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• Reviews span from 2017 to 2021, meaning all reviews are more than 3 years old. No recent data is available to assess current service quality.
• The negative review contains specific, credible detail (billing dispute, direct owner quote, business context) and is treated as high-credibility negative signal.
• The two positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise with limited operational specifics, though not conclusively fake. Mild caution advised.
• Owner conduct described in the 1-star review ('I don't know you from Adam, why should I be nice to you?') is a significant professionalism red flag that warrants consumer awareness.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 3 years, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of current or consistent contractor quality — seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Addario's presents a deeply polarized review profile. Recent reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising courteous technicians, punctuality, clear communication, and skilled workmanship — however, these are heavily concentrated in a short window and show patterns consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews. Older reviews, spanning 2007–2024, contain numerous detailed, credible complaints about severe overcharging, hidden fees, no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete or botched work. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across all eras, with multiple reviewers citing charges two to five times higher than competitors and a lack of itemized billing. Project completion is mixed: recent reviews suggest jobs are finished well, but older reviews document abandoned work, repeated no-shows, and damage left unrepaired. The experience dimension scores moderately, as technical skill is praised in recent reviews but contradicted by documented installation failures in older ones.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW MANIPULATION: The 2025 reviews are heavily clustered in a very short timeframe (April–June 2025), are almost uniformly 5-star, use generic praise with limited specifics, and several contain no review text at all (blank reviews with 5-star ratings). This pattern is consistent with solicited or incentivized review campaigns and significantly reduces confidence in the recent positive reviews.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• EXTREME RECENCY BIAS: The positive reviews are almost entirely from 2025, while the negative reviews span 2007–2024. The older negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, lending them greater individual credibility. The score would be significantly lower if weighted toward the full historical record.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND CONSISTENT: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2023, 2024) describe being charged two to five times competitor rates, receiving no itemized bills, and feeling coerced due to emergency situations. One reviewer explicitly used the word 'thieves' and another documented a $1,704 charge for a water heater the competitor installed for $868.
• BBB MEMBERSHIP REVOKED: Multiple reviewers from the 2007–2008 era reference that Addario's BBB membership was revoked due to complaints including failure to respond to phone calls, delayed completion of repairs, misrepresentation of services, and additional damage after service. This is a significant historical red flag.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICE ALLEGED: One reviewer (1-star, 2015) alleges that Addario's staff lied about a competitor plumber having gone out of business after acquiring their phone number — a serious allegation of deliberate deception.
• ONE REVIEWER NOTED PRICING CONCERN EVEN IN POSITIVE REVIEW: A 5-star reviewer from May 2025 explicitly stated 'Addario's is pricey' while still recommending them, corroborating the pricing complaints even among satisfied customers.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution: the high volume of recent 5-star reviews shows strong indicators of review solicitation or manipulation, while the detailed historical negative reviews reveal a persistent pattern of pricing complaints, communication failures, and project completion issues that cannot be dismissed — consumers should weight the older, more detailed negative reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.