Find Nearby Plumbers In New Brunswick, New Jersey

Rainbow Plumbing and Larry Washington receive overwhelmingly positive feedback on professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, courteous communication, and responsiveness — including multiple after-hours and emergency calls handled same day. Experience and workmanship are also broadly praised, with specific callouts for diagnosing complex problems, going above and beyond, and doing jobs right the first time. However, pricing is a mixed signal: while many reviewers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, several explicitly note charges felt high, one review cites $200/hr labor, one flags overcharging on a warranty job, and one reviewer lost over $500 on an incomplete job. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — at least three reviews describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, unresolved callbacks, or a significant misdiagnosis that led to ongoing flooding damage, which meaningfully pulls this score down. The overall picture is a contractor with strong core skills and service ethic but a pattern of serious failures in a minority of cases.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-06-09 and the review dated 2018-03-22 are nearly word-for-word identical (tankless heating system review). One appears to be a re-post or copied entry. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-06-09 (emergency at 7pm, resolved by 9pm, early flight next day) and the review dated 2023-08-29 are nearly identical in content and phrasing. These appear to be the same event posted twice or a fabricated duplicate. Only one instance was counted.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW: The 1-star review dated 2011-07-11 contains language that reads positively ('attentive and professional', 'does the work right the first time', 'meticulous', 'fair prices') yet was submitted as a 1-star rating. This is internally inconsistent and may reflect a data entry error, a misassigned rating, or a manipulated review. It was excluded from scoring calculations.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 35+) are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2006–2018. The most recent negative reviews (2025, 2020) raise concerns about consistency of quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily by the consumer.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROJECT COMPLETION: At least 3 reviews describe serious failures: a misdiagnosis causing ongoing flooding (2025), an incomplete job with no callback and $500 loss (2020), and a renovation where work was left unfinished, warranty was not honored, and leaks persisted for 6+ months (2013). These are not minor complaints and meaningfully reduce the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING: Multiple reviews across different years flag pricing as higher than expected or unfair, including one citing $200/hr labor charges and one citing overcharging on a warranty repair. This prevents a high pricing score despite the majority of reviewers finding prices acceptable.
• 5 reviews contained no usable text (blank entries or 'unknown' or 'see above') and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the recent negative reviews heavily — particularly the 2025 misdiagnosis and 2020 incomplete job — as these suggest quality consistency issues that the overall positive score may obscure.

Alpine Refrigeration has a strong base of long-term loyal customers who consistently praise punctuality, reliability, and courteous technicians, driving solid professionalism and experience scores. Pricing is frequently cited as fair and competitive, with one reviewer documenting significant savings versus competitors. However, several credible negative reviews meaningfully drag down scores: a customer was left without a promised estimate for months during a medical emergency, a rental property AC repair missed a refrigerant check leading to a repeat failure, an incorrect motor was installed causing a multi-day outage in extreme heat, and a detailed dispute involving a defective new AC installation required multiple warranty visits. A complaint about a rude receptionist also highlights an internal communication inconsistency. These documented failures prevent top-tier scores despite the volume of positive feedback.

• Several negative reviews describe substantive service failures including missed follow-through on estimates (2023), incorrect motor installation (2016), failure to check refrigerant levels (2020), and a prolonged warranty repair dispute (2021) — these are credible and specific and have been weighted accordingly.
• A number of 5-star reviews are relatively brief and generic (e.g., 'Professional and reliable!', 'Very reliable') with little specific detail, which slightly inflates the positive signal; however, enough reviews contain specific names, dates, and job descriptions to suggest the review pool is largely authentic.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2014–2019 range); while they establish a long track record, more recent reviews (2020–2024) include both strong positives and notable negatives, suggesting some service inconsistency in recent years.
• The 2021 detailed dispute review is unusually long and adversarial, suggesting an unresolved escalation; the company's public response was defensive rather than conciliatory, which is a minor professionalism flag.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviewer names, specific technician names (Brian, Troy, Jay, Erik, Jerry, Larry, Eric, Dan), job types, and dates vary sufficiently across reviews.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews spanning 2014–2024 with all four dimensions having 5+ mentions, yielding HIGH confidence across the board; the score of 76.4 is considered a reliable representation of Alpine Refrigeration's performance, tempered by several well-documented service failures that prevent a higher rating.

Queen B Plumbing & HVAC demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism across the majority of reviews, with technicians like Tony and Bob consistently praised for knowledge, courtesy, and timeliness. Brenda, the owner, is frequently highlighted for responsiveness and personal attention, which drives positive sentiment in professionalism. However, the 1-star review from July 2024 is a significant and detailed negative data point, describing a complete breakdown in follow-through and communication after payment — directly impacting both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is limited but generally positive, with one reviewer noting the company was not the cheapest while another praised honest, non-exploitative pricing. The recency of the negative review (2024) and its specificity weigh meaningfully against the otherwise strong older review base.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (July 2024) describes post-payment abandonment, unanswered calls and texts, and an unresolved HVAC issue — this is the most recent review and carries elevated weight under recency rules.
• Several positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Technicians are courteous, timely and very knowledgeable. Brenda is great always very accommodating.') with little specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points.
• No confirmed fake review patterns detected, but 3–4 reviews lack specifics that would fully corroborate their high ratings. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to account for this.
• Most high-rated reviews are from 2021–2023; the only 2024 review is the negative 1-star complaint, which suggests a possible decline in service quality or follow-through in the most recent period.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the most recent 2024 review heavily as it describes a serious service failure that may reflect current operational standards.

Brown's Heating, Cooling and Plumbing has a large and mostly positive review base spanning over a decade, with many long-term customers praising knowledgeable technicians and reliable service. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — particularly from 2016 through 2022 — raises serious concerns about office staff rudeness, no-show appointments, and pricing transparency. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out charges they considered excessive or deceptive, including one reviewer who paid $349 for a repair that cost $149 elsewhere and another who was quoted $2,300 for a job completed by another plumber for $375. Project completion scores moderately well overall, but is dragged down by documented instances of abandoned work, failed callbacks, and a pattern of missed appointments without notice. Technician-level experience and workmanship are consistently praised across many reviews, representing the company's clearest strength.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: At least 8 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates within days of each other (e.g., 'I had a leak from my air conditioner. Anthony fixed the problem...' appears on both 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'Fast service on a drain clog today...' appears on both 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; 'Professional work by a friendly guy' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Very professional' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'They are the best. No problems no issues...' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Will was prompt, professional and efficient...' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'Great job ac' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'Tim was a gentleman and professional...' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04). These are likely fake or artificially inflated reviews and have been discounted in scoring.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW: The review dated 2025-05-31 ('I just read a glowing review of your services on social media from Mary Walter...') is not a genuine customer experience review — the reviewer explicitly states they have never used the service. This review has been excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a 5-star rating). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily skewed positive and contain the duplicate cluster flagged above. Older reviews (2016–2022) contain the majority of negative feedback. The true recent performance trend is difficult to assess given the suspected fake review inflation.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2018, 2021, 2022) explicitly report missed appointments without notice, suggesting a systemic scheduling and accountability issue that is not isolated.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews across multiple years cite pricing as significantly higher than competitors or as deceptive, including hidden charges and bait-and-switch quoting. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2019, 2021, 2022) independently cite rude, dismissive, or unaccountable office/customer service staff. One reviewer reports being told the manager 'didn't care' if they left. This pattern is credible and recurring.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Due to the confirmed duplicate reviews and suspected artificial inflation of recent ratings, confidence in the professionalism and project completion scores has been moderated downward from what raw positive review counts would otherwise suggest.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability for the experience and pricing dimensions given the volume and consistency of independent mentions, but the professionalism and project completion scores should be treated with caution due to a confirmed pattern of duplicate reviews in the most recent period that artificially inflates the positive signal.

The majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and responsiveness, with many customers noting technicians arrived quickly and communicated clearly. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, though two serious negative reviews allege significant overcharging, misdiagnosis, and upselling of unnecessary work — including one $38,000 job where the work allegedly failed and permits were not pulled. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple 1-star reviews describe abandoned or failed work, a no-show appointment, and a sewer connection that collapsed shortly after completion, which meaningfully drags down the score. Experience scores moderately well given many positive accounts of skilled diagnostics and complex sewer work, but is tempered by credible accounts of misdiagnosis and shoddy execution on high-value jobs. The overall picture is a contractor with a strong base of satisfied customers for routine work but meaningful red flags on larger, more complex projects.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10 and 2025-03-11 share nearly identical sentence structures, phrasing patterns (e.g., 'I will absolutely be calling them,' 'Strongly advised,' 'Anyone in need of plumbing services should contact them'), and all are 5-star with no specific technician names or job details. These appear to be artificially generated or coordinated reviews and have been weighted with reduced confidence.
• MULTIPLE COMPANY NAMES DETECTED: Reviews reference 'All Service Plumbing,' 'New Era Plumbing,' and 'Plumbing Doctors' — suggesting this review set may aggregate reviews from more than one business or that the business has operated under multiple names. This significantly reduces the reliability of the composite score.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG — PERMIT VIOLATION: One detailed 1-star review (2025-02-09) alleges the company performed $38,000 of sewer work without pulling permits, had a suspended license at time of work, and the completed connection collapsed within two months. The owner allegedly made no meaningful effort to remedy the situation.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG — MISDIAGNOSIS AND UPSELLING: Two 1-star reviews (2025-03-11) allege the company misdiagnosed plumbing issues, used low-cost drain cleaning as a loss leader to upsell expensive unnecessary repairs, and that a $10,000 drain liner failed to resolve the original problem four months later.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2017-08-23 and 2020-11-01) describe the company or associated plumber failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, and one describes a prolonged pattern of unresponsiveness after an appointment was set.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2015–2017 and reference a plumber named 'CJ' at 'New Era Plumbing.' These older reviews may not reflect current service quality and have been down-weighted accordingly. The most recent reviews (2025) contain both the strongest praise and the most serious complaints.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Several reviews contained no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable data.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: Six reviews had no date and could not be assessed for recency. They were included in scoring but treated as lower weight.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to strong indicators of fake or coordinated positive reviews, aggregation of reviews across potentially multiple business entities, and multiple credible high-detail negative reviews describing permit violations, failed work, and predatory upselling on large jobs.

Roan & King has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise their punctuality, polite demeanor, and fair pricing across many reviews spanning over a decade. The professionalism score is tempered by a notable communication failure (a customer whose call was never returned and whose name could not be taken down), an unresolved ductless AC installation that dragged on for years with the owner becoming unresponsive, and a misdiagnosis case where the team denied responsibility and charged full price despite their error costing the customer $1,800. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: the ductless AC job was never fully resolved, the water heater installation failed a code inspection due to a missing expansion tank, and the water heater leak repair failed to identify the root cause requiring a second visit and replacement — all representing meaningful failures to deliver complete, correct work. Experience scores are buoyed by many reviews citing skilled diagnostics and honest assessments, but are pulled down by the misdiagnosis, the code violation, and the failed AC troubleshooting. Pricing is generally a strength, with many reviewers explicitly noting fair, transparent, and sometimes below-estimate billing, though the $180 repair charge on a unit that immediately needed full replacement is a legitimate concern.

• NEGATIVE PATTERN — UNRESOLVED WORK: The 2022 ductless AC review describes a multi-year unresolved installation with wrong lines, recurring failures, a mess left behind, and eventual owner non-responsiveness. This is a serious project completion and professionalism failure.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — MISDIAGNOSIS AND COST SHIFTING: The 2019 detailed review describes a confident misdiagnosis that led the customer to spend $1,800 on unnecessary contractors. The owner denied responsibility and charged full price for the eventual repair. This significantly impacts experience and professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — CODE VIOLATION: The 2019 water heater review documents a failed inspection due to a missing expansion tank that the plumber claimed was code-compliant. This is a direct experience/workmanship failure.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE DIAGNOSIS: The 2018 water heater review describes a $180 repair on a unit that needed full replacement, with no refund offered. The plumber failed to evaluate the full scope of the problem.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — COMMUNICATION FAILURE: The 2015 review describes a callback that never came, a second attempt where the receptionist could not record the customer's name after four attempts, and no service rendered.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2013–2020. Only 2 reviews are from 2024, and 1 from 2022 (negative). The most recent negative reviews (2022, 2019) are more recent than many of the positive ones, which warrants caution about current service quality.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Named technicians (Paul, Joey, John, Michael, Derrick, Martin, Jake) appear across multiple reviews consistently, adding authenticity. No flag raised.
• SENIORS WARNING REVIEW: One 1-star review from 2019 simply states 'Seniors BEWARE. Just be aware of what you are getting before you agree to have work done.' No detail is provided, so it cannot be scored dimensionally, but it is noted as a potential concern.

This WW Score is based on 32 reviews spanning 12 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the presence of multiple substantive negative reviews describing unresolved work, a costly misdiagnosis, a code violation, and a communication breakdown meaningfully suppresses the score and should be weighed seriously by any prospective customer.