Find Nearby Plumbers In New Brunswick, New Jersey

Robert's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited positive trait — punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication appear in the large majority of reviews. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting competitive flat-rate quotes and no surprise charges, though one detailed negative review raises concerns about billing for travel time and disputed charges. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: the overwhelming majority of jobs were finished satisfactorily, but a handful of reviews describe incomplete work, misleading scope estimates (notably the sump pump incident), and one account of a technician leaving without performing a required safety test on gas lines. Experience scores well overall, with reviewers frequently praising technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and willingness to educate customers, though the serious safety-related complaint from 2018 and the theft/damage allegation from 2023 temper confidence in this area. The score reflects a contractor with a genuinely strong track record over many years, modestly penalized for a consistent minority of negative experiences that are too specific and detailed to dismiss.

• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN (2018): One reviewer explicitly states that a technician left without performing a required gas line test after the inspector departed, failed to disclose a potentially lethal boiler venting condition, and left with a broken thermocouple and leaking circulation pump. This is a significant red flag for safety and professional integrity.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION (2023): One reviewer claims a worker named 'Jimmy Bob' stole a sink and caused toilet and water quality damage. The review is written in an unusual, somewhat implausible style and lacks corroborating detail, but it cannot be dismissed outright. Confidence in this review's literal accuracy is low; however, it is included as a flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / SCOPE DISPUTE (2011): A detailed 1-star review describes incomplete drywall patching, a sump pump installation that did not meet the customer's stated need, condescending behavior, and a charge of $1,300 for work the reviewer valued at $800. This review is highly specific and credible.
• BILLING DISPUTE (2013): A 4-star reviewer noted being charged for over an hour of travel time to a nearby Home Depot and an attempt to charge for a callback to fix a leaking pipe the contractor had installed. The contractor dropped the callback charge only after the customer objected.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (approximately 40 of 52) are older than 5 years, and only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2023). The most recent positive review (2024) is strong, but the overall score is heavily influenced by older data. Current performance may differ.
• TWO UNUSABLE REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: 'Did not use this company' (2011, 1-star) and 'unknown' (2014, 5-star) contain no actionable information and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2007-05-18 and 2007-05-22 describe an almost identical water heater replacement experience with the same details (Rob and Keith, $300 flat quote, ~1 hour completion, free disposal). These appear to be the same job reviewed twice, possibly by two members of the same household. Both were counted but flagged as potentially duplicative; this slightly inflates positive pricing and professionalism signals.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Despite the high proportion of 5-star reviews, the majority contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied language. The positive review corpus does not exhibit the hallmarks of coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and largely credible review set spanning 18 years, with HIGH confidence across all dimensions due to mention volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the recency of the data, two serious safety and conduct allegations, and the fact that only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months.

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.

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

Pete's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal long-term customers — many citing 10, 20, 25, even 39 years of repeat use — and the majority of technicians (Colin, Vince, Josh, James, Ron, Joey, Horacio, Frank) are praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 25–30 out of 163) reveals recurring systemic issues: missed or no-show appointments without notification, poor office communication and follow-through on estimates and callbacks, and at least several instances of work left incomplete or worsened. Pricing complaints are notable — multiple reviewers cite billing discrepancies, undisclosed hourly charges, and feeling overcharged — which meaningfully drags the pricing score below the otherwise positive sentiment. Project completion is similarly mixed: while most jobs are described as completed well, there are documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved problems after service, and refusal to honor callbacks. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is praised far more often than it is criticized, though a few reviews describe plumbers who were clearly out of their depth.

• CLUSTER OF NEAR-IDENTICAL COLIN SPENCER REVIEWS: Between December 2024 and February 2025, there are 14+ reviews all praising 'Colin' or 'Colin Spencer' with very similar structure, generic praise, and minimal job-specific detail. Several are posted on the same dates. This pattern is consistent with a coordinated or incentivized review campaign and should be treated with caution. Confidence in the professionalism score is slightly reduced as a result.
• 15 REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT: These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data beyond a star rating.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed are from 2024–2025 and carry full weight. Reviews from 2013–2019 are present and were considered but given reduced weight. Several older negative reviews (2014–2019) describe extreme unprofessionalism including profanity from staff and abandoned repipe jobs — these may reflect prior ownership or management and are noted but not fully weighted against current operations.
• REPEATED OFFICE/COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years describe the same pattern — no-shows, no callbacks, estimates never sent, and dismissive office staff. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING IRREGULARITIES: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe being overbilled, charged for time not worked, or surprised by undisclosed fees. One reviewer documented being billed $172 for a job quoted at $106 with the plumber in and out in under 15 minutes.
• ONE REVIEW (Jeremy/Anoka County) APPEARS TO BE FOR A DIFFERENT BUSINESS: The review referencing 'Jeremy' in 'Anoka County, Minnesota' does not match the Long Beach, CA location of Pete's Plumbing and may be a misattributed review. It was excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW (Paul/Metuchen) ALSO APPEARS MISATTRIBUTED: References 'Paul' and 'Metuchen' plumbers, inconsistent with Pete's Plumbing Long Beach. Excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, ~148 usable) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction — but the score should be interpreted cautiously given suspected coordinated positive reviews for one technician (Colin Spencer), documented recurring office and billing failures, and the possibility that current service quality differs from historical performance.

American Plumbing Services has a large and genuinely mixed review record spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible negative reviews describing rude technicians, ignored callbacks, no-shows, and dismissive office staff — including serious allegations of dishonesty and attempted fraud — despite a strong majority of reviewers praising individual technicians by name for courtesy and communication. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers explicitly called out a paid estimate fee ($45–$70), opaque lump-sum billing, and quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, while a meaningful number of others praised affordability and fair pricing, creating a polarized picture. Project completion is moderately positive but undermined by several reviews describing abandoned work, missed appointments, unresolved callbacks, and a technician who installed a water softener cartridge without removing its shrink wrap. Experience scores are generally positive — many reviewers praised technical knowledge and problem-solving — but are offset by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, refused safety tests, and at least one allegation of deliberate dishonesty in diagnosing a leak.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (all 5-star). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to originate from different geographic markets (New Jersey water main work vs. DFW plumbing vs. California locations), suggesting this may be a shared business name or aggregated profile across multiple unrelated companies. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2021-09-21 to 2021-09-22 (three reviews within one day) use very similar language praising affordability, promptness, and knowledge with no specific job details. These show possible fake review patterns and have been weighted conservatively.
• Multiple serious misconduct allegations are present: one reviewer alleges a technician fabricated evidence of a water leak (2020-02-22); another alleges a technician refused to perform a covered gas leak test leaving the household in a dangerous situation for 4 weeks (2020-01-10); another alleges theft of items from a garage (2019-12-16); and another alleges a technician made a comment about the homeowner's wealth to justify a charge (2021-07-29). These are not isolated complaints and materially reduce confidence in professionalism and integrity scores.
• A pattern of deteriorating service quality over time is noted by multiple long-term customers (reviews from 2015 and 2016) who explicitly state that quality declined as the company grew. More recent negative reviews (2019–2023) continue this trend.
• The review corpus spans from 2014 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) represent the majority of the dataset and may not reflect current service quality. Recent reviews (2022–2025) are more mixed-to-positive but fewer in number.
• One review (2019-10-02) appears to be a misdirected review for an unrelated business ('AV Auto Electric') and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given credible allegations of fraud, safety negligence, and theft, a likely multi-entity review pool spanning different geographic markets, and a documented pattern of service quality decline noted by repeat customers over time.

Caballero & Sons earns strong praise across a large volume of reviews for punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive scheduling, which drives a solid professionalism baseline. However, multiple credible negative reviews — including a no-show appointment, a technician charged for an incomplete diagnosis, a customer who resolved a $975 misdiagnosis for $40 themselves, and repeated complaints about being charged for visits where nothing was accomplished — meaningfully drag down both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers call prices fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of 1-star reviews explicitly cite overpriced materials, unexpected fees, a duplicative trip charge plus labor minimum, and a snaking surcharge on top of hourly labor, indicating inconsistent and sometimes opaque pricing practices. Experience scores moderately well given numerous mentions of skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but the misdiagnosis incident and the case where a technician could not remove a balancing spool introduce meaningful doubt. The review base spans from 2009 to 2025, so older reviews carry reduced weight, though the pattern of both praise and pricing complaints persists into recent years.

• 14 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count without providing usable data.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-04-01) appear to be near-duplicate complaints about overpriced materials on time-and-materials jobs, possibly posted by the same customer. Treated as a single incident for scoring purposes to avoid double-counting.
• One review (2023-11-28) describes a serious misdiagnosis: technicians recommended a $975 valve replacement that the homeowner resolved for $40 by replacing a corroded elbow connector. This is a significant competence and project-completion flag.
• One review (2021-06-29) describes a complete no-show with no call — a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• One review (2012-01-20) describes a technician asking a customer to sign a job-complete form and pay $213 for a job that was not finished — a serious project completion and ethics flag.
• One review (2017-08-30) describes billing errors, a permit omission, and being 'held hostage' for additional fees — flags for transparency and follow-through.
• One review (2016-07-26) describes staff providing three different price quotes and no apology for a two-hour late arrival — flags for communication and pricing transparency.
• One review (2015-04-26) describes a no-show estimate appointment after an initial $65 charge for a visit where nothing was done.
• One review (2020-12-05) describes being charged $170 for under 30 minutes with no work performed, and dismissive customer service when questioned.
• Review span is very wide (2009–2025). Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of negative reviews are spread across multiple years, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific technician names, job details, and dollar amounts, indicating authenticity across both positive and negative submissions.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of multiple detailed and credible negative reviews — particularly around pricing transparency, misdiagnosis, no-shows, and incomplete work — means the score should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment rather than a high-confidence endorsement.