Find Nearby Plumbers In New Brunswick, New Jersey

ACE Plumbing, Heating and Air draws an overwhelmingly positive picture across a large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising specific technicians by name — particularly Aaron, Chappy, Gerry, Ryan, Manuel, Everett, Martin, Josh, and others — for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Project completion scores are strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, often under emergency conditions. Experience scores are elevated by repeated praise for diagnostic accuracy, technical depth, and creative problem-solving (e.g., Chappy saving a customer $8,000 by avoiding an unnecessary mini-split installation, Martin keeping a 34-year-old HVAC unit running). Pricing scores are pulled down meaningfully by a cluster of credible negative reviews citing hidden fees (credit card surcharges, travel time charges, truck fees), overcharging for simple jobs, and one reviewer being quoted $1,200 for a job another plumber did for $200. Professionalism is also modestly penalized by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing rude staff, no-shows, failure to honor warranties, and at least one technician (Mike/Mohammad) accused of fraud and non-refund — these are serious flags that prevent a higher score despite the dominant positive signal.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are near-identical in wording and posted on consecutive dates (June 6-8 and June 5-7, 2025). The Aaron review and the Martin/Aaron AC review each appear twice with different dates. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding and reduces confidence in the most recent review cluster.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A review posted by the company owner (Max Greenberg) praising his own technician Chappy is included in the dataset. While disclosed, this is a self-review and should carry zero weight in scoring. It has been excluded from scoring calculations.
• HIDDEN FEES / PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple credible negative reviews cite undisclosed fees including a 5% credit card surcharge, a $30 travel time charge, and a $10 truck fee not disclosed at booking. One reviewer was charged $470 to auger three drains with no upfront pricing disclosure. These are material pricing integrity concerns.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (Feb 2024) names a specific technician 'Mike (Mohammad Alzawahreh)' and alleges payment was taken via Venmo for unresolved work, refund requests were ignored, and calls were evaded. This is a fraud allegation and significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews across different time periods allege that ACE failed to honor stated warranties — including a lifetime water heater guarantee, a 30-day drain warranty dispute, and a callback that was never honored after a no-show emergency call.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, including one emergency no-call no-show and one technician who broke drywall and left without completing the job.
• RUDE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple reviews spanning 2018–2024 describe rude, dismissive, or hostile interactions with staff — including hang-ups, refusal to let customers speak, and disrespectful treatment of elderly customers. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2011 to June 2025. Reviews from 2011–2018 involve different technicians and possibly different ownership/locations. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily positive and dominate the dataset, but the negative reviews from this period (hidden fees, rude manager Scott, no-show) are credible and have been weighted accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic areas including Sacramento CA, Bullhead City AZ, Toledo OH, Baltimore MD, Diamond Bar CA, Evansville IN, and others. It is likely that this dataset aggregates reviews for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Ace Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a single-contractor assessment is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple geographically distinct and likely unrelated 'Ace Plumbing' businesses have been aggregated together — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local ACE Plumbing branch before making a hiring decision.

Lou's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 79.8, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and solid technical expertise. The company excels in punctuality, courtesy, and workmanship quality, with 58 mentions of professional conduct and 35 mentions of skilled execution. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness with a score of 71.0 based on 18 mentions—multiple customers report surprise charges, lack of transparent quotes, and pricing that exceeds competitor estimates. Project completion is reliable at 81.0, though several reviews document communication lapses and instances where callbacks were not honored promptly. The company's strength lies in individual technician quality and responsiveness, but operational consistency in pricing transparency and follow-through remains a concern.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2015, 2017, 2019, 2020) report surprise charges, refusal to provide quotes over phone, and pricing significantly higher than competitors. One customer reported a $12,500-$15,500 quote that Roto Rooter completed for $6,000. This pattern suggests systemic pricing opacity.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 4 reviews document poor communication—missed callbacks (2019), scheduling confusion (2017), last-minute cancellations (2022), and unannounced early arrivals (2022). One customer reported no callback after two attempts during business hours.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews describe incomplete or incorrect work requiring callbacks—kitchen sink installation left unsecured (2019), faucet installation with wobbling fixture and extra holes (2019), toilet work that failed 10 days later (2018), and outdoor faucet valve not reinstalled (2016).
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 23 reviews contain only 'unknown' or minimal text (e.g., 'went well', 'no defects') with 5-star ratings from 2015-2016. These appear to be placeholder or auto-generated entries and reduce confidence in the overall dataset.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2015-2022. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly 5-star with detailed praise, while older reviews show more critical detail. This may reflect either genuine improvement or selection bias in recent review submission.
• EXTREME OUTLIER REVIEWS: Two very old reviews (1997, 2002) with minimal context and extreme ratings (1-star and 5-star) appear disconnected from modern operations and should be weighted minimally.

This WW Score of 79.8 is reliable for assessing overall professionalism and technical competence, but should be interpreted cautiously regarding pricing—the company's pricing practices show a consistent pattern of opacity and customer surprise that is not fully captured in the aggregate score. Customers should request detailed written quotes before committing and expect potential additional charges. The HIGH confidence rating reflects substantial mention counts, but the presence of 23 'unknown' placeholder reviews and a 27-year review span introduces some data quality uncertainty.

Freedom Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across all four reviews, with consistent mentions of punctuality, clear communication, and courteous behavior. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of work delivered as promised and emergency responsiveness. Technical competence is evident through knowledgeable problem-solving and explanations. Pricing receives limited mention (only one review references cost-saving efforts), preventing a comprehensive assessment of value. The WW Score of 88.3 reflects solid performance, though the small sample size (4 reviews) and limited pricing data warrant moderate confidence.

• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or negative mentions
• Pricing dimension mentioned in only 1 review; insufficient data for robust pricing assessment
• Review dates span 2020-2023 with most reviews older than 12 months (3 of 4 reviews predate 2023)
• Generic praise language present but each review contains specific details (burst pipe incident, basement finishing, response times), reducing fake review concern

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size and absence of any critical feedback; additional recent reviews would significantly strengthen confidence in this assessment.

MyGuy Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians across a large and consistent review base spanning several years. Project completion scores are also high, with most reviewers reporting jobs finished thoroughly, on time, and with proper cleanup — including complex multi-day jobs and emergency situations. Experience scores are similarly strong, with numerous reviewers specifically calling out technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly describe charges as excessive, opaque, or disproportionate to the work performed (e.g., $400+ for a 10-minute drain unclog, $500 for a 20-minute faucet swap, $700 for under-2-hour hose bib replacement), and there are complaints about high-pressure upselling of membership plans and lack of upfront phone quotes — this materially drags the pricing dimension down and suppresses the overall WW Score. There are also two serious negative reviews alleging shoddy workmanship, warranty non-compliance, and predatory practices toward elderly customers, which introduce a meaningful quality-control flag despite being a minority of total reviews.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: At least 10 reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overpricing, lack of upfront quotes, or charges perceived as disproportionate to the work performed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• HIGH-PRESSURE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviewers independently describe aggressive upselling of membership/subscription plans during service visits, with at least one reviewer feeling coerced into signing a contract they later could not cancel for a refund.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT (2023): One detailed 0.5-star review alleges a prior repair by technician Sean caused a pipe failure within 6 months, that the company refused to honor its stated 2-year warranty, and then quoted $8,300 for a repair a subsequent plumber completed in under 2 hours. The owner is named as supporting the technician's disputed assessment. This is a significant red flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACK FAILURE (2023): One 1-star review from a repeat customer states a toilet repair was left non-functional after the visit, requiring the customer to fix it themselves. The customer stated intent to file complaints with the State Board of Examiners and BBB.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE (2021): One 2-star review notes the company never responded to an initial inquiry and could not schedule service for at least 5 days when called.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — MODERATE CONCERN: A large proportion of reviews are 5-star with generic praise and no specifics (e.g., 'Professional', 'Great service!', 'Excellent', 'Very professional'). While many reviews are detailed and credible, the volume of vague single-sentence 5-star reviews warrants moderate caution. No definitive fake review pattern confirmed, but confidence is noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2021–2025, with a meaningful cluster from 2025 and 2024. Reviews from 2019–2020 appear to reflect a smaller, owner-operated business (Ryan referenced as sole technician), while later reviews reflect a scaled multi-technician operation. Scores are weighted toward more recent reviews.
• LATE ARRIVAL NOTED: One 2019 review (2.5 stars) explicitly states technicians showed up late from the scheduled time, in addition to citing overpricing.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total, 163 with usable data) spanning approximately 2019–2025, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the professionalism, project completion, and experience dimensions; however, the pricing score and overall WW Score should be treated with caution given a clear, recurring, and multi-year pattern of pricing complaints, high-pressure sales tactics, and at least two serious service-quality allegations that suggest meaningful risk for prospective customers.

Jason and Call The Plumber receive consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most universally mentioned quality, with every reviewer noting responsiveness, promptness, and courteous communication — including emergency availability on evenings and weekends. Pricing is described as fair and transparent in four reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting that Jason actively steered them away from unnecessary expense, which is a strong positive signal. Project completion scores slightly lower because one review explicitly notes the job was not fully completed (the dryer situation remained unresolved), though this was due to circumstances beyond Jason's control and he handled it responsibly. Experience is well-supported, with multiple reviewers citing technical skill, problem-solving ability, and competence with complex or older infrastructure.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews contain specific details and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• 6 of 8 reviews are older than 12 months as of a 2024 reference date; 5 reviews are from 2017–2019, meaning recent performance data is limited. The most recent review is from March 2023.
• Review volume is low (8 total), which limits statistical confidence in all dimension scores despite the HIGH confidence labels on mention counts.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small review pool of 8 and the skew toward older reviews, but the specificity and variety of scenarios described across reviews lend credibility to the consistently positive ratings.

Anytime Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base spanning roughly 2006 to 2025, with professionalism and experience being the most consistently praised dimensions. The vast majority of reviewers highlight prompt response times, courteous technicians, clear communication, and technically competent work — with named technicians like Amer, Jerry, Miguel, Sam, Brian, Tom, and Victor repeatedly earning individual praise. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 20 out of 231) reveal recurring concerns that meaningfully suppress scores: pricing complaints appear in multiple reviews citing overcharging, upselling, and bills that felt disproportionate to the work performed; project completion is dinged by several credible accounts of abandoned jobs, no-call/no-shows, unresolved callbacks, and at least two serious allegations of incomplete or damaging work left unaddressed. Responsiveness failures — including multiple reviews citing no return calls, sometimes over days or weeks — are a notable pattern that contradicts the company's 'Anytime' branding and pulls the professionalism score below what the majority-positive reviews would otherwise support. Pricing receives the lowest score due to a consistent thread of customers feeling overcharged or upsold, even among otherwise satisfied reviewers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review from 'Jerry came to take care of an old and leaky shower cartridge...' (Rating 5.0) appears verbatim on both 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30. Similarly, 'The plumber arrived quickly, explained everything clearly...' (Rating 5.0) appears verbatim on both 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30. These are likely duplicate submissions and were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/PADDED REVIEWS: A cluster of reviews dated 2020-06-07 (approximately 10 reviews) share suspiciously similar generic phrasing ('Amer and his team', 'Amer and crew', 'Amer and his guys') with no specific job details, all rated 5 stars. These may be solicited or padded reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are older than 3 years. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show continued strong positive sentiment but also include fresh negative reviews about responsiveness and pricing, suggesting the pattern of mixed performance is ongoing rather than historical.
• NO-CALLBACK PATTERN: At least 7 distinct reviews across multiple years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2023) explicitly cite failure to return calls or follow up on appointments. This is a recurring operational weakness.
• UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention feeling upsold or pressured into unnecessary additional services, which is a meaningful signal for the pricing dimension.
• SERIOUS UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: At least two reviews describe significant property damage or failed repairs (hole left in bathroom wall, garbage disposal knockout plug not removed causing floor damage) with no apparent resolution from the company. One review describes a plumber allegedly staging a clog. These are serious credibility concerns even if they represent a minority of reviews.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a rating). These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE NOTE: Reviews appear to reference multiple service areas including Santa Cruz CA, New Jersey, Virginia, and North Dakota, suggesting this profile may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses operating under similar names. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review dataset (231 reviews) with HIGH statistical confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a cluster of suspected padded reviews, a persistent no-callback pattern across many years, and several serious unresolved complaints about workmanship and billing — the true score for an individual customer's experience may vary significantly depending on which technician is assigned and the nature of the job.