Find Nearby Plumbers In Jersey City, New Jersey

Anthony Buonsanto Plumbing and Heating receives consistently strong marks across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight prompt communication, courteous behavior, punctuality, and responsiveness. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair, honest, and reasonable across multiple reviews, lending solid confidence to that dimension. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished efficiently, on time, and with thorough follow-through including detection of secondary issues. Experience and technical skill are affirmed by long-term clients, a general contractor, and a landlord managing multiple properties, all of whom describe Anthony and his team as knowledgeable and expert. The score is tempered slightly by the uniformly positive tone across all reviews, which warrants a mild fake-review awareness flag, though the level of specific detail in many reviews supports their authenticity.

• All 20 reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback whatsoever — this pattern warrants mild fake-review awareness scrutiny.
• However, many reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, multi-year relationships, and unique scenarios (e.g., PSEG gas leak, commercial steam boiler, holiday emergency), which significantly supports authenticity.
• Four reviews share the same date of 2024-04-12 — this clustering could indicate a solicited review campaign, though the content of each is distinct and detailed.
• Three reviews share the date 2024-07-16 — same note applies; content is varied but brevity of some reduces individual evidential weight.
• No negative or mixed reviews are present, so scores reflect only positive signals and may not capture the full performance picture.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence due to a strong volume of reviews (20), all dated within the past 12 months, with sufficient specific detail across most reviews to support authenticity — though the absence of any critical feedback and some date clustering slightly tempers full certainty.

This plumbing service demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strengths in experience/technical knowledge (86.0) and pricing fairness (85.5). Professionalism scores well at 84.0, reflecting consistent praise for courtesy, communication, and punctuality. Project completion (79.0) is the lowest dimension, driven by a notable pattern of no-shows and scheduling failures that appear throughout the review history, though most completed work is described as thorough and high-quality. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects a reliable, honest contractor with excellent workmanship but reliability concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• RELIABILITY PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 12) document no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to communicate delays. Dates span from 2012 to 2024, indicating this is a persistent issue, not isolated incidents. Examples: 2024-09-11 (waited until 9:10am, called 6 times), 2016-11-11 (no-show after phone confirmation), 2015-03-02 (two no-shows with no communication), 2013-08-30 (two missed appointments with poor communication), 2012-03-12 and 2012-03-08 (no-shows without notice).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: A small number of reviews (3-4) describe poor workmanship or overcharging: 2024-03-05 (multiple failed repairs, excessive charges), 2018-02-14 (incorrect installation, no callback), 2012-12-09 (incomplete work, overcharging). These contrast sharply with the overwhelming majority of positive reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: The majority of reviews are from 2010-2017 (older than 1 year). Recent reviews (2024-2025) show mixed results: some excellent (May 2025), but also the significant no-show incident (September 2024). This suggests possible service degradation or inconsistency in recent months.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2025-05-10 through 2025-05-19 show suspiciously similar phrasing and generic praise ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'great job') with minimal specific detail. However, these are balanced by highly detailed, specific reviews from the same period, so confidence in fake review detection is LIMITED.
• REVIEWER CONCENTRATION: A very high proportion of reviews mention the owner 'Ata' or 'Ata Manneh' by name, suggesting this is a one-person or very small operation. This explains scheduling constraints but also means reliability issues directly impact the entire business.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for work quality and pricing, but customers should be aware of significant and persistent scheduling/reliability risks documented across 12+ reviews spanning multiple years; the contractor is honest and skilled but frequently misses or delays appointments without adequate notice.

Edwards Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous technicians, and skilled workmanship across 42 and 26 mentions respectively. However, the company is significantly hampered by recurring project completion issues—including no-shows, missed callbacks, incomplete work requiring return visits, and warranty disputes—mentioned in 28 reviews. Pricing concerns appear in 18 reviews, with complaints about hidden charges, unexpected upsells, and bills exceeding quoted amounts. While many customers report fair pricing and free estimates, a notable subset experienced surprise fees and billing discrepancies that undermine trust. The company's performance is inconsistent: excellent service in recent 2025 reviews contrasts sharply with serious failures in follow-through and accountability documented across multiple years.

• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS AND MISSED APPOINTMENTS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2023, 2022, 2019) document instances where technicians failed to show up for scheduled appointments or did not return calls, suggesting systemic scheduling or reliability issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Several reviews describe work left incomplete (e.g., hot water not tested after cartridge replacement, faucet not tightened, tank not secured to toilet) and owner/manager refusal to honor callbacks or warranty obligations.
• HIDDEN CHARGES AND BILLING DISPUTES: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention unexpected charges, undisclosed trip fees, or bills significantly exceeding quoted amounts, with one customer reporting the owner became argumentative and hung up when challenged.
• WARRANTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: One detailed review describes a 1-year-3-month-old installation that failed; when customer requested repair, company refused based on expired 1-year warranty despite customer loyalty and second job performed.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews from 2022-2023 describe shoddy workmanship (faucet failing after 4 months despite professional install, reverse osmosis system failure after 4 months, loose connections causing repeated leaks), contrasting with recent 2025 reviews praising quality.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 8 reviews contain no text (empty review fields with 5-star ratings from Jan-Dec 2025 and Nov 2024), which may indicate fake or placeholder reviews. This reduces confidence in the overall positive skew of recent ratings.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with detailed praise, while older reviews (2019-2023) contain more substantive complaints. This temporal clustering of positive reviews warrants caution.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe unprofessional behavior by owner (Mike/Robert), including argumentative tone, refusal to honor commitments, and poor customer service responsiveness.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and expertise, it is significantly dragged down by documented failures in project completion and pricing transparency. The presence of empty 5-star reviews, the stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and older substantive complaints, and the pattern of no-shows and billing disputes suggest the company's reliability has been inconsistent over time. Customers should expect good technical work and friendly service but should obtain detailed written estimates, confirm all fees upfront, and be prepared for potential scheduling issues or callback delays. The company's recent performance (2025) appears improved, but historical patterns warrant skepticism about long-term consistency.

Austin Plumbing and Heating receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers citing prompt responses, respectful communication, and clean workmanship. Project completion is generally well-regarded, with several reviews noting on-time delivery, passed inspections, and follow-through — however, one 1-star review from 2020 explicitly describes a job left in worse condition than found, lateness of over 4 hours, and refusal to accept responsibility for damages, which meaningfully pulls down the completion and professionalism scores. Pricing is mentioned positively in a small number of reviews, with references to fair pricing and staying within budget, but the limited mention count reduces confidence in that dimension. Experience scores are supported by a solid base of reviews referencing technical breadth across boilers, sewer lines, gas leaks, and inspections, though the negative review introduces a credible counterpoint that cannot be ignored.

• Two reviews dated 2022-09-12 appear nearly identical in content and phrasing — one may be a duplicate or coordinated submission. Both describe a decade-long relationship, the same building types, and nearly identical praise. These were treated as a single data point for scoring purposes to avoid inflating confidence.
• A cluster of 7 reviews all dated 2022-09-11 with no time granularity is unusual and may suggest a coordinated review campaign. While the content varies somewhat, the concentration on a single date warrants caution.
• Most reviews (11 of 15) are older than 12 months from a 2024 reference point, with only 2 reviews from 2024. The recency of the data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.
• One serious 1-star review (2020-09-22) explicitly describes property damage, lateness, and refusal to take responsibility. This is a credible negative signal and was weighted accordingly in project completion and professionalism scoring.

The WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given the volume of reviews, but is tempered by a suspicious clustering of reviews on a single date in 2022, two near-duplicate reviews, limited recency of data, and one substantive negative review describing unresolved property damage.

Advanced Plumbing earns strong marks for responsiveness and professionalism across the majority of reviews, with multiple customers praising same-day or after-hours availability and courteous, knowledgeable technicians. However, three negative reviews meaningfully drag down all dimensions — one customer paid $475 for what they described as incomplete drain work, another reported a technician installing a clearly ill-fitting toilet without disclosure, and a third felt taken advantage of without elaborating. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers explicitly praised fair and transparent costs, while the $475 complaint and the multi-visit scheduling/payment frustration introduce real concern. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as the toilet installation complaint and the half-completed drain job represent clear failures to deliver satisfactory outcomes. Experience scores moderately well given the tankless water heater diagnosis, the persistent root-clearing job, and multiple technically competent service calls, but is tempered by the installation failure.

• Three reviews (1-star: drain job July 2023, toilet install June 2016, vague complaint March 2016) describe negative outcomes including overcharging, incomplete work, and poor follow-through — these are credible and specific enough to meaningfully reduce scores.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (May 2024) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is limited and the score may not reflect current service quality.
• Several positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('great,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly') without granular detail, though most include enough specifics (technician names, job types, timeframes) to be considered credible.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but the imbalance between detailed negative reviews and some thin positive reviews warrants mild caution.
• The 2018 review notes scheduling delays over several months and paying for two repairs before resolution — a project completion and professionalism concern that is partially offset by the reviewer's ultimate satisfaction.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews spanning 2012–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the age of most reviews and the presence of three substantive negative experiences that reveal real service inconsistencies.

Fenix demonstrates strong professionalism and exceptional project completion across all reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and thorough workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers (2023-2024 reviews) explicitly describing charges as excessive or expensive despite acknowledging quality work. Experience is solid with evidence of technical skill and problem-solving, though fewer explicit mentions. The WW Score of 84.2 reflects strong operational execution tempered by pricing concerns that recur in more recent reviews.

• PRICING CONCERN: Two of the most recent reviews (2024-05-01, 2023-12-28) and one from 2023-09-29 explicitly flag pricing as high or excessive. This is a consistent pattern in recent feedback and should be weighted heavily.
• RECENCY BIAS: Older reviews (2022) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise and no pricing concerns. More recent reviews (2023-2024) show critical pricing feedback. This suggests either price increases over time or selection bias in older reviews.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews analyzed. While usable, this is a small dataset and confidence should remain moderate overall.

This score is moderately reliable but should be interpreted with caution: professionalism and completion are well-supported by consistent evidence, but the pricing dimension is based on only 4 mentions with a clear negative trend in recent reviews that warrants serious consideration by potential customers.