Find Nearby Plumbers In Salem, Massachusetts

Al Corelli receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most universally cited quality — every reviewer mentions his friendliness, punctuality, responsiveness, or communication in some form. Pricing is a standout theme, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting his rates were significantly cheaper than competitors, including one case where his quote came in $500 below a rival and another where he saved a customer hundreds by recommending only necessary work. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished quickly, on time, and cleanly — including a notable two-day turnaround on a boiler job. His technical experience and problem-solving ability are highlighted in several reviews, particularly his consultative approach to diagnosing issues and advising against unnecessary work. The only caveat is that all reviews are from 2013–2016, meaning there is no recent data to confirm whether this level of service has been maintained.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 8 YEARS: Every review dates from 2013 to 2016. There is no data from the past 12 months or even the past several years. This significantly limits the reliability of the score as a reflection of current service quality.
• POTENTIAL RECENCY BIAS: Per scoring rules, recent reviews should carry more weight. With no reviews from the past 12 months, the WW Score reflects a historical snapshot only and should be interpreted with caution.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK — LOW RISK: While all reviews are 5-star, the language varies meaningfully across reviews, specific details are provided (dollar amounts, job types, timelines), and several reviews include nuanced narratives. This does not appear to be a fake review pattern, though the uniformly positive ratings across a small sample warrants mild note.

This WW Score is mathematically HIGH confidence based on mention volume and consistency, but should be treated as a historical profile only — all 9 reviews are from 2013–2016, and no current data exists to validate whether this contractor's quality and availability remain at the same level today.

O'Brien Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across professionalism, project completion, and experience dimensions. Eight reviews explicitly praise professional conduct, punctuality, communication, and cleanliness. Seven reviews confirm reliable job completion with fast response times and thorough follow-through. Five reviews attest to skilled workmanship and technical competence. However, pricing is never mentioned across any review, creating a significant data gap. The WW Score of 88.3 reflects solid execution on measured dimensions but is constrained by the absence of pricing feedback.

• PRICING DATA ABSENT: No reviews mention pricing, value, quotes, or affordability. This is a critical gap that limits full assessment of contractor value proposition.
• REVIEW AGE CONCERN: 5 of 9 reviews are older than 5 years (2013-2019). Only 2 reviews are from 2024 and 2021. Recent performance data is limited.
• PATTERN OBSERVATION: All 9 reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language. While not definitively fake, the complete absence of any critical feedback or mixed experiences is unusual and warrants caution.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and completion metrics are well-supported by multiple recent and older reviews, the complete absence of pricing data and the age of most reviews limit confidence in overall reliability. The uniformly perfect ratings across all reviews suggest potential selection bias or incomplete review representation.

Calzini's Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience in the majority of reviews, with many customers praising David's responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including water heaters, disposals, boilers, and HVAC. Project completion is generally strong, with numerous reviewers noting jobs were finished quickly and correctly, and several highlighting follow-up calls or return visits to ensure satisfaction. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score: multiple independent reviewers — including one who works in construction — explicitly called out quotes as excessive or inconsistent, and one reviewer flagged a mid-job price jump from ~$600 to over $2,000. There are also two serious negative incidents involving abandoned work and a disputed faulty repair, which meaningfully reduce the project completion score. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and workmanship but a recurring and well-documented pattern of pricing concerns that prospective customers should carefully evaluate.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Dave from Calzini's Plumbing and Heating got me through a hard time...' appears twice with identical text — dated 2022-06-03 at two different timestamps. This was counted as one unique review for scoring purposes.
• PRICING CONCERNS — MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS: At least 6 separate reviewers explicitly flagged pricing as too high or inconsistent, including a construction professional, a landlord, and a new homeowner. This is a statistically significant pattern across the review set and is not an isolated complaint.
• ABANDONED WORK / INCOMPLETE JOB: One reviewer (1-star, 2022-03-19) states David walked off a job leaving a tenant with no working toilet, and a second plumber attributed the ongoing issue to David's original faulty repair. This is a serious project completion flag.
• PRICE INCONSISTENCY COMPLAINT: One reviewer (1-star, 2021-12-09) reports a quote jumping from $575–$750 to over $2,000 after work discussions began, citing a claimed retroactive 'price adjustment.' This suggests possible transparency issues in quoting.
• NO-SHOW / COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer (1-star, 2020-10-29) reports David confirmed availability for Monday but never showed and never followed up.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE CONTENT: 'Flat screen TV mounting' (2020-10-14) and 'It didn't go !!!' (2020-10-03) provide no actionable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2020–2022. Only two reviews are dated within the past 12 months relative to early 2023 (January 2023 and October 2022). The score may not fully reflect current service quality.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC REVIEWS: A small number of reviews (e.g., 'He did a good job.', 'Shut off valves installed in bathrooms.', 'Fast service, was able to clear our kitchen drain quickly') are extremely brief with no specifics. While not conclusive of fakery, they add limited evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews with a substantial volume of detailed, specific feedback across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence ratings across the board; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given a documented pattern of pricing disputes, at least one credible abandoned-job complaint, and a no-show incident — prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain written quotes before committing to work.

Best Plumbing and Heating has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and willingness to go above and beyond — including same-day service, no-charge visits for minor fixes, and even pro bono work for veterans. However, the review set contains meaningful negative signals that cannot be ignored: multiple complaints about billing transparency and unauthorized charges, at least one instance of a no-show with no follow-up, a serious complaint about an installed heating system that failed and was deemed dangerous by National Grid, and a complaint about technicians being clueless about a heating issue and making it worse over six visits. Professionalism is dinged by the cigarette smoke complaint and the driving incident, though the majority of professionalism mentions are positive. Pricing scores are pulled down significantly by multiple credible complaints about undisclosed charges, invoices arriving days late, and final bills far exceeding quoted amounts. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are described as completed well and quickly, but there are notable failures including abandoned remodel commitments, unresolved callbacks, and a dangerous heating installation that was never remediated. Experience scores are moderate-positive overall, offset by the heating system failure and the multi-visit heater debacle where the customer ultimately fixed the toilet themselves with a $20 Amazon part.

• One review (Puleo Plumbing of Marblehead, MA) appears to reference a completely different company and geographic location — this review is likely misattributed or posted to the wrong business profile and should be treated as unusable data.
• The 1-star review from 2012 alleges a dangerous heating system installation that National Grid had to shut down due to explosion risk and that the company never responded to letters or calls — this is a serious safety and liability flag.
• Multiple credible billing complaints across different years (2015, 2017, 2022) describe final invoices significantly exceeding quoted prices, unauthorized parts being installed, and charges for time not actually worked — this is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• The 1-star review from January 2024 describes six service visits that made a heating problem worse, and technicians claiming a toilet was irreparable when a customer fixed it with a $20 Amazon part — suggests possible skill gaps in HVAC/heating work specifically.
• A no-show complaint (2017) describes Joe failing to return calls or show up as promised — responsiveness issues appear in more than one review across different years.
• Most positive reviews are from 2019 or earlier; only two positive reviews are from the past 24 months (2022), while three of the four most recent reviews (2022–2024) are 1-star. This recency trend is a meaningful warning sign of possible declining service quality.
• The July 2024 review ('I take back all the nice things I said') implies a previously positive reviewer reversed their opinion, suggesting a negative experience after prior satisfaction — though no specifics are given, the reversal itself is notable.
• No reviews appear to be fake; language is varied, specific, and includes named individuals and detailed scenarios. Review authenticity appears genuine across the set.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear negative recency trend, recurring billing transparency complaints, at least one serious safety allegation, and evidence of inconsistent workmanship — particularly in heating-related work.

Super Service Today demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism in individual interactions, with technicians frequently praised for friendliness, punctuality, and knowledge. However, the company is severely undermined by pervasive pricing concerns that dominate negative reviews. Customers consistently report charges 3-4x market rates, aggressive upselling of unnecessary services (full repiping, system replacements), and high diagnostic fees. Project completion is mixed—while emergency response is often praised, multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed inspections, and callback issues. The stark divide between positive recent reviews (mostly 5-star with limited detail) and detailed negative reviews spanning years raises credibility concerns.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent reviews (June 2025, May 2025, April 2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, generic praise, and repetitive language ('very professional,' 'friendly,' 'efficient'). Several reviews contain no text or single-sentence comments. This contrasts sharply with older, detailed negative reviews. Recommend treating recent 5-star cluster with caution.
• SYSTEMATIC PRICING ABUSE: 41 mentions of pricing issues across 100 reviews. Documented pattern of: (1) $59-$230 diagnostic fees; (2) quotes 3-4x competitor rates; (3) aggressive upselling of major work (repiping $10k-$25k, system replacement $12k+); (4) lack of transparent cost breakdowns; (5) pressure tactics during estimates. Multiple customers report paying $1500+ for work competitors quoted at $150-$500.
• SAFETY AND QUALITY CONCERNS: One detailed 2024 review documents serious boiler service failures including improper pump installation, leaking gas supply, missing gaskets, and dangerous combustion readings (CO at 55 ppm). Another 2024 review alleges negligent diagnosis leading to unnecessary $9k-$18k excavation quote when water jetting solved problem for fraction of cost. Pattern suggests over-diagnosis to justify high quotes.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews document unresponsiveness to complaints, failure to return calls, missed appointments without notice, and one 2021 review alleging attempt to withhold deposit in exchange for non-disparagement agreement (later reversed). Management follow-up appears inconsistent.
• INCONSISTENT WORK QUALITY: Several reviews report work had to be redone by other plumbers, failed inspections, incomplete jobs, and technician communication failures across multiple visits. One review documents $1200 toilet installation that didn't fix the problem, requiring second $397 visit.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 98% of reviews are from 2015-2025. Most negative detailed reviews cluster in 2018-2024. Recent positive reviews (June 2025) lack specificity and detail, suggesting possible review manipulation or selection bias.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuine data across 100 reviews with HIGH confidence in dimension scoring, the company exhibits a stark and documented pattern of predatory pricing practices that systematically disadvantage customers. The recent cluster of generic 5-star reviews raises credibility concerns about data integrity. Customers consistently report being charged 3-4x market rates and pressured into unnecessary major work. Technical competence and professionalism are real but are severely compromised by pricing abuse and aggressive upselling. This company appears to prioritize revenue extraction over customer value, making the overall score misleading if interpreted as trustworthiness.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism and problem-solving ability, with multiple reviews praising politeness, responsiveness, and technical skill in diagnosing difficult issues. However, critical failures in project completion significantly undermine the overall score: a 2022 review documents two major installation failures (cracked dishwasher installed without inspection, drain pipe left unconnected causing basement water damage). While responsiveness was noted as excellent, work quality was explicitly criticized. The contractor's score is dragged down by these documented completion failures despite positive interpersonal feedback.

• CRITICAL: 2022 review documents severe project completion failures—cracked dishwasher installed without inspection and drain pipe not connected, resulting in water damage to basement. This is a major red flag for quality control.
• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5-star ratings (2016-06-14 and 2017-03-16). These appear to be placeholder or fake reviews with no substantive content. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• Significant recency gap: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2019 (5–7 years old). The most recent review (2022) is highly negative, suggesting possible quality decline or inconsistency.
• Review from 2022 explicitly states 'One star for the quality but 5 star for responsiveness,' indicating a disconnect between communication/responsiveness and actual work execution.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by multiple detailed reviews, the project completion score is heavily influenced by a single but severe 2022 failure involving water damage. The presence of fake/placeholder reviews and the age of most positive reviews further reduce confidence. The contractor's recent track record appears problematic despite historical strengths in customer service.