Find Nearby Plumbers In Hackensack, New Jersey

Allure Plumbing and Heating (which appears to also encompass A Conway Plumbing reviews in this dataset) scores very strongly across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning nearly 15 years. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous demeanor, shoe covers, follow-up calls, and clear communication. Pricing scores well, with multiple reviewers specifically noting fair, transparent, and competitive rates — including one notable instance where the plumber charged less than quoted after determining less work was needed. Project completion scores slightly lower due to one substantive 1-star review describing incorrect roughing work, an improperly installed diverter, wrong materials used, and work left incomplete — a meaningful data point that prevents a top-tier score. Experience is well-supported, with reviewers frequently citing technical knowledge, effective problem-solving, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs including boilers, water heaters, gas lines, and drain issues.

• 3 reviews contain no text content (blank or 'unknown') and were excluded from scoring — these are low-value entries that slightly inflate the total review count.
• One review (2018-11-15, 1-star) describes serious workmanship failures: incorrect roughing, wrong materials, improperly installed diverter, and incomplete work requiring full remediation. This is the only negative review and meaningfully impacts the project_completion and experience scores.
• The review dataset appears to blend reviews for two distinct business entities: 'Allure Plumbing & Heating' and 'A Conway Plumbing & Heating.' Multiple technician names appear (Tony, Jim, Nick, Vinnie, Brandon, Hector, Al, Matt, Mr. Conway). This may indicate a merged or aggregated review profile, which could affect score reliability if these are truly separate businesses.
• A large proportion of reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants mild fake-review scrutiny. However, most reviews contain specific names, job details, and situational context, which reduces the likelihood of systematic fabrication. Confidence is maintained but noted.
• Recency note: Approximately 25 reviews are dated before 2022, with some as old as 2009. More recent reviews (2024–2025) are numerous and consistent in quality, suggesting the business has maintained standards over time. Older reviews were weighted slightly less per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to a large volume of detailed, specific reviews across multiple years, though users should note the mixed business entity concern and the single substantive negative review describing incomplete and incorrect work.

JM Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1. The company excels in professionalism (86.5) and technical experience (88.0), with consistently praised punctuality, responsiveness, and skilled workmanship across 89 and 62 mentions respectively. Project completion is solid at 85.0 across 76 reviews, though some callbacks and follow-up service issues are noted. Pricing emerges as the primary weakness (71.0), with multiple reviews citing high labor rates, emergency surcharges, and perceived overcharging despite quality work. The company's responsiveness and technical expertise in tankless water heaters are standout strengths.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly mention high costs, overcharging, or emergency pricing exploitation. Reviews from 2015-10-08, 2015-09-18, 2017-01-20, 2017-04-12, and 2011-08-31 detail specific pricing grievances. This is the most consistent negative pattern.
• SERVICE FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: At least 4 reviews (2022-04-20, 2019-04-17, 2015-03-05, 2013-10-14) report poor follow-up communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, or failure to honor promised service after initial installation.
• INCONSISTENT COMMUNICATION: One review (2015-03-05) reports complete non-responsiveness to estimate requests over 6+ weeks; another (2022-04-20) reports repeated promises with no delivery on service callbacks.
• EMERGENCY PRICING PATTERN: Review from 2017-01-20 explicitly states the reviewer felt 'taken advantage of' during holiday emergency; review from 2015-10-08 notes high labor rates ($500 for 1.5 hours); review from 2011-08-31 reports flat-rate pricing perceived as 'highway robbery.'
• MINOR FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Several reviews contain only 'unknown' or single-word text ('It went well,' 'Exceptionally well,' 'All good!') with 5-star ratings. These 8 reviews lack substantive detail but do not appear coordinated enough to suggest systematic fraud. Treated as low-information rather than fraudulent.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2014-2017 (peak period). Only 3 reviews from 2022-2023. Recent reviews show mixed results (one 5-star, one 2-star complaint about service non-delivery). Limited recent data may mask current performance trends.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing technical competence and professionalism but should be weighted with caution regarding pricing fairness; the company's pricing practices appear inconsistent and potentially exploitative in emergency situations, as evidenced by 8+ explicit complaints. The score reflects strong execution quality but masks a significant customer satisfaction gap around cost transparency and value perception.

Wickersheim & Sons demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and responsive service across 52 mentions. Project completion is solid at 82.0 with 35 mentions, showing reliable follow-through on jobs, though some older reviews cite incomplete work or unresolved callbacks. Experience scores well at 85.0 based on 28 mentions of skilled workmanship and technical knowledge. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 71.0 with 18 mentions—multiple reviews explicitly cite high costs, unexpected bill increases, diagnostic fees, and overcharging, though some customers acknowledge fair pricing relative to quality. The company's nearly 100-year history and third-generation ownership support credibility, but pricing concerns and occasional service failures prevent a higher overall score.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple explicit complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and bill inflation (e.g., $900 labor estimate became $1154; $155 diagnostic fee; overcharges by 'several hundred dollars'). This is the most consistent negative pattern.
• INCOMPLETE/FAILED WORK: Several reviews from 2011-2018 describe broken pipes during service, incomplete jobs, unresponsive callbacks, and refusal to correct mistakes. One customer reported being hung up on by an owner.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2021) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star). Older reviews (2011-2018) contain more critical feedback. This suggests either improved service or potential review platform bias.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain no text, only ratings (mostly 5-star, one 1-star). These cannot be analyzed for dimension-specific evidence and reduce data quality.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in customer experience—some report excellent service and fair pricing; others report negligence, overcharging, and poor follow-up. This suggests inconsistent service delivery or technician-dependent quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Cluster of 5-star reviews from June 2021 and June 2020 with minimal detail ('Awesome as always', 'Life Savers!!!', empty text) may indicate platform manipulation, though this is not definitive.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to 89 reviews with usable data and strong mention counts across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant pricing concerns and historical service failures that warrant caution—customers should specifically inquire about pricing transparency and get detailed written estimates before committing. Recent reviews are substantially more positive than older ones, suggesting either genuine improvement or review recency bias.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to represent multiple businesses operating under similar or identical names (Royal Flush Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Service, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and technical skill — with many customers citing same-day or emergency responsiveness as a standout quality. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, overcharging without upfront disclosure, incomplete or defective work, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods describing charges they felt were excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts. Project completion scores are dragged down by recurring complaints about abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Royal Flush Plumbing,' 'Pro Plumbing Service,' and references to individual owner-operators (Jarrod, Steve, Ben, Doug, Ted, Jose, etc.) across different geographic markets (Atlanta GA, Philadelphia PA, Providence RI, Las Vegas NV, Hollister CA, Cleveland OH, Oregon City OR, and others). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple unrelated businesses, severely limiting the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of reviews contain zero substantive detail — only a star rating or a single generic phrase like 'Great service!' or 'Amazing!' with no specifics. Approximately 60-80 reviews fall into this category. Several clusters of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10) which is statistically anomalous and suggests possible review manipulation or bulk import artifacts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least one review (Ted and his crew sewer line replacement) appears to be posted twice with identical text and nearly identical dates (2024-07-18). Additionally, two reviews from 2021-09-24 are near-identical complaints about overcharging for a kitchen faucet installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from approximately 2003 to June 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews in recent months raises authenticity concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years and locations describe a consistent pattern of pricing not disclosed upfront, charges significantly exceeding verbal quotes, and management being unresponsive or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: A recurring theme across negative reviews spanning 2008 to 2022 involves technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, no calls to notify customers, and rescheduled appointments also being missed. This pattern appears in enough reviews to be considered a systemic reliability concern rather than isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several detailed negative reviews describe defective workmanship including broken components attributed to technician error, incomplete jobs, and refusal to return to fix mistakes under warranty. These are high-severity complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion score.

This WW Score carries LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability for any single business decision due to strong evidence that the review dataset aggregates multiple unrelated businesses across different markets, combined with a statistically anomalous clustering of blank and generic 5-star reviews that suggests possible review inflation; the score is best interpreted as a broad industry-level benchmark rather than a precise assessment of any one contractor.

All Clear Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill, with many customers highlighting prompt arrivals, friendly technicians, and successful resolution of complex plumbing issues. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises serious concerns across all dimensions: hidden charges and pricing disputes appear in at least 4 reviews, failed or incomplete work requiring redo appears in at least 3 reviews, and rude or unprofessional behavior is cited in at least 3 reviews. Project completion is notably penalized by incidents of abandoned follow-through, a job that had to be redone twice, a toilet repair that failed and required a callback that was delayed, and a crew that never followed up after a failed drain clearing. Pricing confidence is dragged down by explicit complaints of overcharging, surprise fees, and one customer alleging outright fraudulent upselling. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths but a non-trivial pattern of service failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use 'unknown' as text content and were excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints are significant: at least 4 reviews explicitly describe hidden charges, surprise fees, or alleged price gouging. One review describes a $610 out-of-pocket demand for unnecessary parts under a home warranty. Another describes $330 for 10 minutes of work. These are not isolated incidents.
• Project completion failures noted in multiple reviews: one customer had a job fail and require redo twice; one toilet repair leaked again shortly after; one crew failed to follow up for an entire week after an incomplete job; one customer states both jobs had to be redone by a different professional.
• Rudeness/unprofessionalism flagged in at least 3 negative reviews: one describes the plumber as 'argumentative and rude,' one describes the owner as hanging up and being a 'complete prick,' and one describes a very hostile interaction over an estimate.
• Recency note: The majority of positive reviews are from 2017–2021 or earlier. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both positives and a significant 1-star review about hidden charges and jobs needing to be redone. The 2022 negative reviews about follow-through failures are also notable.
• Some older reviews (2007–2014) reference different named technicians and may reflect a different operational period of the business. These were included but given reduced implicit weight due to age.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though a large number of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'The best', 'Excellent!', 'Great - quick & efficient') slightly reduce confidence in the positive signal. These were scored conservatively.
• One 1-star review (Dan and Darwin, 2018-10-31) gave positive descriptive content but a 1-star rating — this appears to be a data entry error or misclick. It was treated as ambiguous and not used to penalize scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (87 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the persistent pattern of pricing complaints and project completion failures across multiple years means the score should be treated as a genuine mixed signal — not a blanket endorsement.

Edmond J. Adams & Sons demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for courtesy, responsiveness, and family-business values across multiple reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented with detailed explanations of repairs and honest assessments. Pricing is perceived as fair and transparent with quotes provided upfront. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by one severe cancellation incident (3 consecutive cancellations) and one customer service failure, which create material concerns about follow-through despite otherwise positive completion records. The company's older review base (most from 2014-2018) limits recency assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 8 reviews are from 2014-2018 (6+ years old). Only 1 review from 2018 is recent. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• CRITICAL RELIABILITY FLAG: One review explicitly states 3 consecutive cancellations with strong language ('DO NOT CALL'). This directly contradicts the 'reliable' and 'trustworthy' claims in other reviews and suggests inconsistent service delivery.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: One 1-star review documents rude phone behavior and dismissive attitude toward a customer who chose a competitor, indicating professionalism lapses in customer interactions.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: 5 of 8 reviews are 5-star with detailed, specific praise (mentioning Richard by name, family business heritage, specific repairs). While credible, the concentration of glowing reviews alongside severe negative incidents suggests highly variable service quality.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 6+ years old) and a critical contradiction between documented cancellation failures and reliability claims. The score reflects historical performance but does not reliably predict current service quality. The company shows strong technical competence and professionalism in successful engagements, but demonstrated project completion failures and customer service lapses warrant verification of current practices before engagement.