Find Nearby Plumbers In Atlantic City, New Jersey

Mohr Mechanical receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently praised attribute, with reviewers repeatedly noting punctuality, friendliness, cleanliness, and responsive communication. Pricing is highlighted as fair and transparent across multiple reviews, with specific callouts that there were no emergency surcharges or hidden fees. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished on time and follow-through on commitments, including same-day responses and multi-day installations completed as promised. Experience is evidenced by technically specific praise — including correct diagnosis of a long-standing faucet pressure issue others had missed, and successful installation of complex systems like a Navien Combi Boiler — though the relatively small review pool limits the ceiling of confidence.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details, named individuals, and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review recency is uneven: 3 reviews are from 2022–2023 and carry full recency weight, but 5 reviews range from 2013 to 2019 and are more than 4 years old. The older reviews should be weighted less heavily as they may not reflect current service quality.
• Review volume is low (8 total). While all dimensions reached the HIGH confidence threshold via the scoring formula, the absolute number of reviews is small and the WW Score should be interpreted with that context in mind.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given consistent and specific reviewer feedback across all dimensions, but should be treated with some caution due to the small total review count, the age of the majority of reviews, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback.

Eagle Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and respectful behavior (52 mentions, 88.5/100). Project completion is solid with evidence of timely work and follow-through (28 mentions, 86.0/100). Technical experience is well-regarded with customers praising skill and problem-solving (18 mentions, 87.5/100). However, pricing is a notable weakness with multiple customers expressing concern about high costs, though most acknowledge the work quality justifies expense (15 mentions, 72.0/100). The company excels in customer service and workmanship but struggles with value perception.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly mention high or expensive pricing. While most customers accept this, two detailed negative reviews (2013-05-04 and 2015-06-30) cite significant overcharging concerns. The 2015-06-30 review alleges repeated failed work on a clogged drain with multiple charges—this is a serious quality/ethics flag that contradicts the otherwise positive pattern.
• RECENCY ISSUE: 68 of 75 reviews are from 2017 or earlier (over 6 years old). Only 7 reviews are from 2018 or later. This significantly limits confidence in current service quality and practices.
• OUTLIER NEGATIVE REVIEW: The 2015-06-30 one-star review describing repeated failures on drain work and alleged targeting of seniors stands in stark contrast to all other reviews. This requires investigation—either it represents a genuine service failure or a dissatisfied customer with unrealistic expectations. This single review materially impacts the overall score.
• FAKE REVIEW MARKERS: Review dated 2019-04-17 contains only 'hgfhfgh' (gibberish) and review dated 2018-10-02 contains only '.' (period). These appear to be placeholder or spam entries. Two reviews with 0.0 ratings (2013-01-29 and 2012-04-05) lack corresponding negative text, suggesting data entry errors. These 4 reviews were excluded from scoring.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Many reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('prompt,' 'professional,' 'friendly,' 'nice guys') which could suggest template-like responses, though this is common in plumbing reviews and may simply reflect consistent service delivery.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for historical performance but LOW confidence for current service quality. The HIGH confidence in professionalism and project completion is based on 52 and 28 mentions respectively from a large review pool, but the data is heavily skewed toward 2014-2017 reviews. The serious allegations in the 2015-06-30 review (repeated failed work, overcharging seniors) are unresolved and contradict the otherwise uniformly positive pattern, suggesting either a genuine service failure or a data anomaly. Pricing concerns are consistent and credible. Prospective customers should request itemized quotes and verify current service standards given the age of most reviews.

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing receives strong marks for professionalism and experience, with dozens of recent reviews praising technicians like Mamadou, PJ, Ken, and DJ for being courteous, punctual, thorough, and knowledgeable. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by two notable negative reviews describing unresolved problems, a failed repair, and a complete lack of follow-up callback — serious red flags for a plumbing company. The pricing dimension is the most damaging area: multiple independent reviewers across different years describe pricing as dramatically higher than competitors, with one reviewer alleging a wax seal was charged for but never installed, and another describing high-pressure upselling tactics. The heavy volume of 5-star reviews from 2025 — many mentioning the same technicians with similar phrasing — warrants a fake review flag, which moderately reduces confidence in the professionalism and experience scores.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large cluster of 5-star reviews from April–June 2025 repeatedly mention the same technicians (Mamadou, Ken, PJ, DJ) with very similar language ('thorough,' 'professional,' 'courteous,' 'knowledgeable'). Several reviews contain no detail whatsoever beyond a name and a rating. This pattern is consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews and should reduce confidence in the upper-end scores.
• 4 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAGS ON PRICING: Multiple independent reviewers (2014, 2019, 2021, 2022) describe pricing as far above market rate, with one alleging a supervisor charged for a wax seal that was never installed. This is a recurring and credible pattern across years.
• FOLLOW-UP / CALLBACK FAILURE: One reviewer (2020) explicitly states they were promised a callback that never came after a failed repair, and ultimately canceled their service contract. A second reviewer (2021) states an odor problem was never resolved despite multiple visits and thousands spent.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The overwhelming majority of positive reviews are from 2025, while all 1-star reviews are from 2019–2022. This temporal split may reflect genuine improvement, but combined with the fake review flag, it warrants caution.
• FLOOR DAMAGE COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2020) alleges a technician (named DJ) damaged wood floors and placed tools on marble counters without protection — a professionalism and workmanship concern that partially offsets the positive reviews mentioning DJ.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by a suspected pattern of solicited 5-star reviews, a stark pricing credibility problem supported by multiple independent accounts, and documented cases of failed follow-through — consumers should weigh the negative reviews heavily before hiring.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Broadley's receives strong and consistent praise for professionalism, courtesy, and punctuality from the majority of recent reviewers (2025), with many technicians — Walt, Brian, Tayler, Geoff, and others — named positively by customers. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern, with multiple reviewers across different years explicitly calling out high charges, lack of itemized billing, and a perceived mismatch between labor time and cost. Project completion is mixed: recent reviews suggest smooth service delivery, but older reviews document serious failures including repeat service visits for unresolved issues, abandoned diagnostics, and one case where a unit required six visits before functioning. Experience scores are dragged down by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, inexperienced technicians, and workmanship defects that led to long-term problems, even as many recent reviews praise technical competence. The overall picture is a company that has improved in recent years but carries a meaningful history of quality and pricing complaints.

• 11 reviews contained no text — only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence inflates the apparent rating average.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2025 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service! Great people!', 'Fantastic service as always') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary value and were scored conservatively.
• Pricing dimension has multiple explicit negative data points: $409 for an 18-minute repair with a $7-10 part, $1500 for a water heater with no itemized bill, $600 for duct tape repair, and $400 quoted to fix a leak caused by their own installation. These are serious and specific complaints that significantly lower the pricing score.
• Project completion has credible, detailed negative reviews: one customer required 6 service visits for a new unit installation, another had 3 visits with no resolution and was told to find another company, one technician left a unit disassembled for days in summer heat, and one case involved misdiagnosis across multiple visits before the customer's own electrician found a loose wiring harness.
• Several negative reviews are older (2014–2022) and may not reflect current operations. However, they are specific, detailed, and credible, and cannot be dismissed. Recency weighting was applied — recent (2025) reviews were given more weight — but older negatives were not ignored.
• One review (2020) contains highly inflammatory language and vague accusations without verifiable specifics. It was given reduced weight but not fully excluded as it corroborates themes seen in other reviews (staff turnover, inability to complete work).
• The contrast between the volume of recent 5-star reviews and the detailed older 1-star reviews suggests possible service quality improvement over time, but also raises the question of whether negative experiences are underrepresented in recent submissions.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews with a broad date range (2014–2025) and sufficient textual evidence across all four dimensions; the score is moderately reliable but should be interpreted with caution given the stark split between recent positive reviews and older detailed negative accounts, particularly around pricing transparency and project completion.

Lenegan Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. Pricing appears fair based on limited explicit mention. However, a critical 1-star review from 2021 describing a no-show appointment significantly impacts project completion reliability, indicating inconsistent follow-through despite other positive completion reports. The majority of reviews are older than 2 years, limiting recency confidence. Overall, the company shows capability but has documented service failures that warrant caution.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 5 reviews are from 2019-2021; only 1 review from 2023. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: One explicit no-show appointment (1-star, 2021) directly contradicts claims of reliability. This is a serious service failure that cannot be ignored despite positive other reviews.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only 1 review explicitly mentions pricing/value. Score of 85 is based on single mention of 'very reasonable' — insufficient data for confidence.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited recent reviews and a documented service failure. The score reflects mixed reliability: strong technical capability and professionalism when service is delivered, but a critical no-show incident raises concerns about appointment adherence and follow-through consistency.