Find Nearby Plumbers In Waltham, Massachusetts

Douglas Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions, with particularly notable strengths in professionalism and responsiveness. Eight reviews explicitly praise punctuality, communication, friendliness, and attitude, while six reviews highlight fair and reasonable pricing compared to competitors. Project completion is well-documented across seven reviews, showing consistent follow-through and timely job delivery. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in five reviews describing quality workmanship. However, one 2019 review raises serious concerns about hourly billing practices, unnecessary work, and lack of owner accountability, which moderately tempers the overall score.

• One strongly negative 2019 review (1-star) contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern, citing hourly billing abuse, unnecessary tasks, incomplete work, and owner non-responsiveness. This suggests potential service inconsistency or past operational issues.
• Eight of nine reviews are 5-star ratings with generally positive language, though most include specific details (response times, technician names, job descriptions) that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• Review recency is mixed: four reviews from 2024-2023 (recent), three from 2020-2019 (older), and two from 2018-2022. The negative review is from 2019, predating most recent positive reviews, suggesting possible service improvement over time.
• One review (2018) uses notably enthusiastic language ('AMAZING', 'masterful', 'saved my life') but includes specific details (Tim, Dylan, timeline, weather conditions) that support authenticity.

This WW Score of 87.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence, supported by nine reviews with consistent mention counts across all dimensions. However, the single 1-star review from 2019 describing billing and accountability issues warrants caution—the score reflects strong recent performance but does not guarantee protection against the billing practices or quality inconsistencies documented in that complaint.

High Quality Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength with 48 mentions emphasizing punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness—particularly Daniel's same-day callbacks and weekend availability. Project completion is consistently reliable with 35 mentions of jobs finished on time and to specification, though two serious negative reviews (permit violations and poor ditch work) and one service cancellation create material concerns. Experience and technical skill are well-documented across 28 mentions, with customers praising problem-solving ability and quality workmanship. Pricing receives moderate support (16 mentions) with most customers describing fair and competitive rates, though one customer expressed uncertainty about pricing structure. The company's long-term customer relationships and repeat business indicate sustained satisfaction.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2022-11-28) alleges serious regulatory violations—failure to pull required permits for sewer line and tankless water heater installation, claiming 100+ jobs done without permits. Customer reports being told permits were unnecessary, contradicting Nevada State Contractors Board and Douglas County requirements. This represents potential legal/compliance risk and breach of professional standards.
• One 1-star review (2023-06-28) documents poor customer service: appointment confirmed for 8:00 AM, then cancelled at 7:57 AM via phone call claiming service area too far, despite company having full information the previous day. Represents significant communication and reliability failure.
• One 1-star review (2018-06-11) is vague ('If you can go online...') and provides no actionable detail; appears to be a troll review.
• One 1-star review (2021-06-10) states only 'It was an estimate from your brother or brother in law'—unclear complaint, possibly personal dispute rather than service quality issue.
• One 3-star review (2022-08-22) indicates customer initially left negative review but owner Daniel called, promised refund, and followed through. Review upgraded to 3-star acknowledging owner's integrity in making things right, but original problem remains undocumented.
• Multiple empty/blank reviews (5-star with no text) present in dataset—4 instances. These cannot be analyzed for dimension mentions and reduce data quality.
• Review dates span 2015–2025; majority of reviews (45 of 61) are from 2018 or earlier, with only 8 reviews from past 12 months (2024-2025). Recent data is limited; older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• Pattern of extremely high ratings (54 of 61 reviews are 5-star) combined with very few critical details in some reviews could suggest selection bias or review curation, though the two serious 1-star reviews and detailed negative feedback on permits suggest reviews are not artificially filtered.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable for general assessment of professionalism and project completion, supported by HIGH confidence across those dimensions with 35+ mentions each. However, the score should be interpreted with caution due to two material red flags: documented permit violations and regulatory non-compliance (serious legal/ethical concern) and one significant service cancellation incident. The company's strong reputation for responsiveness and customer relationships is well-supported, but the permit issue raises questions about whether the company operates within legal/professional standards. Prospective customers should independently verify current licensing, insurance, and permit compliance before hiring. Recent review data is limited (only 8 reviews in past 12 months), so current performance may differ from historical average.

Pete consistently receives strong praise for professionalism across nearly all reviews, with customers highlighting his responsiveness, punctuality, courteous demeanor, clear communication, and clean work habits. Project completion scores are high, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished same-day or within the agreed timeframe, including during emergency situations and a snowstorm. Experience scores are similarly strong, with several technically-minded reviewers explicitly noting Pete's skill, up-to-date knowledge, and problem-solving ability on complex hydronic and emergency plumbing jobs. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while the majority of reviewers describe rates as fair or reasonable, one 1-star review explicitly accuses Pete of overstating material costs and padding labor time estimates, which meaningfully pulls this dimension down. All reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent dating to early 2018, which reduces confidence in how well this score reflects current performance.

• ALL 13 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 12 MONTHS: The most recent review is from March 2018, meaning there is no data from the past several years. This score may not reflect Pete's current quality or business practices.
• REVIEW DATE RANGE CONCERN: Reviews span 2014–2018. No recent reviews are present, which is itself a potential signal worth noting — it is unclear whether the business is still active.
• MILD FAKE REVIEW PATTERN POSSIBLE: The majority of reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language. However, most contain specific details (dates, job descriptions, named scenarios) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication. The pattern is not conclusive but worth noting.
• PRICING COMPLAINT: One 1-star review (2014) explicitly alleges that Pete overstated material costs and inflated labor time estimates in a written quote. This is a specific, credible complaint that was factored into the pricing score.
• DEFENSIVE REVIEW LANGUAGE: The first review (2018) appears to directly rebut prior negative reviews, which may indicate the contractor has faced criticism not fully captured in this review set.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with reasonable specificity and detail, but all reviews are over 6 years old, which significantly limits how reliably this score reflects the contractor's current performance — treat with caution and seek recent references before hiring.

George demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, friendliness, and knowledgeable demeanor. His technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented, with customers noting his willingness to answer questions and provide educational guidance. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews, with customers noting fair and competitive rates. Project completion is implied through successful job execution across multiple service types, though explicit timeline or callback data is limited. The contractor's willingness to go above and beyond is a recurring theme that strengthens confidence in his overall service quality.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical comments—this uniformity warrants caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied scenarios that suggest authenticity rather than fabrication.
• Review dates range from 2015 to 2017; all reviews are older than 7 years, which limits recency assessment. No recent reviews are available to confirm current service standards.
• Sample size is small (n=5), which constrains statistical confidence despite positive mention counts within individual dimensions.
• Pricing dimension is based on only 2 mentions; confidence in pricing assessment is limited.

This WW Score of 89.3 should be treated with moderate confidence due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and age of data (all pre-2018), though the consistency of positive feedback and specific detail in reviews suggests genuine customer experiences rather than fabricated testimonials.

JD Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across a large sample of reviews, with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and knowledgeable workmanship. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, with transparent quotes. However, project completion reliability is notably weaker, with multiple documented instances of no-shows, ghosting after job completion, abandoned work mid-project, and failure to honor callbacks or warranty commitments. These serious follow-through failures significantly impact the overall score despite otherwise strong performance in other dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document no-shows and no-call patterns (reviews dated 2024-09-04, 2021-09-29, 2020-06-10, 2017-12-05, 2018-11-05, 2019-12-17, 2019-12-31). This is a recurring systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Several reviews report ghosting after job completion or mid-project abandonment (2021-09-29, 2019-12-31, 2019-12-17, 2019-07-08, 2022-08-17). Customers report unresponsiveness to calls and texts regarding warranty work, follow-ups, and unfinished jobs.
• CRITICAL: One review (2022-08-17) alleges ethical issues including holding $6,000 deposit without returning funds or completing work, and pressure-selling unnecessary services.
• CRITICAL: One review (2019-05-24) reports excessive pricing ($245 for 12-minute service, $225 minimum charge) with poor justification.
• CONCERN: One review (2024-04-23) reports plumber smelled of alcohol during quote visit and is not licensed.
• PATTERN: Approximately 8-10 negative reviews (1-2 star ratings) cluster around project completion failures, suggesting this is a genuine weakness rather than isolated complaints.
• NOTE: Vast majority of reviews (240+) are 5-star ratings with detailed positive language. While this reflects genuine satisfaction for completed work, the concentration of 5-star reviews with minimal critical feedback may indicate some selection bias in review platform.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (251 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions. However, the score masks a critical vulnerability: while JD Plumbing excels at professionalism and technical work when engaged, there is documented evidence of serious reliability issues including no-shows, ghosting, and abandoned projects. Prospective customers should weight the strong technical reviews heavily but also acknowledge the material risk of communication breakdown and follow-through failure, particularly for warranty work and callbacks.

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.