Find Nearby Plumbers In Newark, New Jersey

Amasi Plumbing has a mixed but small review record. Three of four reviews praise responsiveness, emergency availability, and competent workmanship — including arriving within 5 minutes for a burst pipe emergency and completing a shutoff valve installation in 30 minutes. However, one review (2021) describes a complete no-show for a scheduled appointment with no call or text, which is a serious professionalism failure that significantly drags down the professionalism score. No reviews mention pricing at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall picture is of a contractor capable of strong work but with at least one documented reliability failure.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score has very low statistical reliability and should be treated with caution.
• Three of the four positive reviews are from 2014–2020, making them 4–10 years old. The most recent review (2021) is the only negative one, which may indicate a decline in service quality over time.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.
• The 2021 no-show incident (1-star review) is the most recent data point and should be weighted heavily as a recency signal of potential reliability issues.
• Review volume is too low to detect fake review patterns conclusively, but the positive reviews do contain specific details (names of workers, job descriptions, timeframes) which reduces fake review suspicion for those entries.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years, with the most recent review being a serious complaint — the score should be treated as highly unreliable and insufficient for confident contractor evaluation.

Crossroads Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: several reviews praise punctuality, courteous communication, and honest assessments, while multiple others describe rudeness, unprofessional behavior from both plumbers and the owner, and in one alarming case an alleged unauthorized entry into a customer's home. Pricing is a significant weakness — multiple reviewers explicitly complained about overcharging, inflated labor hours, excessive parts markups, and lack of upfront estimates, dragging this score down considerably. Project completion is also problematic, with at least three reviews describing work that was left incomplete or problems that were worsened rather than resolved, though several other reviews describe jobs finished efficiently and thoroughly. Experience scores moderately, with positive reviews citing skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but negative reviews describing botched repairs, burst pipes caused by the crew, and recurring issues after completed jobs. The overall picture is of an inconsistent contractor with genuine strengths in some interactions but serious, recurring failures in others.

• Five reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no substantive content — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (2013-02-11) contains garbled, incoherent text ('head.ipese around 2:30 see above') and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (2015-09-21) contains only 'I see no areas of improvement' with no specific detail — treated as non-informative and excluded from dimension scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 analysis date; only one review (2023-09-17) is within the past 12 months. Scores are therefore heavily influenced by older data and may not reflect current service quality.
• The single most recent review (2023) is strongly positive and detailed, but it cannot outweigh the volume of negative reviews from prior years.
• One review (2014-02-12) describes an alleged unauthorized entry into a customer's home by a Crossroads employee — this is a serious conduct flag.
• One review (2021-06-26) alleges $750 was charged for a repair that was never completed — a significant project completion and integrity concern.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary substantially in tone, detail, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: all four dimensions have sufficient mentions to generate HIGH confidence scores individually, but the heavy skew of reviews predating 2022 means the score may not accurately reflect the contractor's current performance, and the single 2023 review should be weighted cautiously given the volume of older negative data.

Arlington Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Positive reviews — mostly from 2005 to 2015 — praise responsiveness, courteous workers, and solid technical workmanship, including complex jobs like freeze-seal pipe replacement and multi-issue plumbing repairs. However, the two most recent substantive reviews (2024) are severely negative, describing overbilling, lack of estimates, failure to fix problems on repeated visits, and conduct bordering on fraudulent (charging for unfixed work, alleged theft of parts). Pricing is a significant liability: multiple reviewers across different years cite overcharging, lack of upfront estimates, and shock at final bills. Project completion is similarly split — older reviews show reliable follow-through, while recent reviews describe repeated failed visits and unresolved problems. The recency of the negative reviews is a serious concern and drags the score down considerably.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2024) are both severely negative (1-star and 2-star) and describe billing fraud, repeated failed service visits, and lack of transparency. These are given elevated weight per Rule 6.
• TWO BLANK/USELESS REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5-star ratings and no detail. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1.
• OLDER REVIEW DOMINANCE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2005–2015, some nearly 20 years old. Business practices and staff may have changed significantly. These reviews were scored conservatively.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN CONCERN: Several older all-caps 5-star reviews (2005–2006) are brief, generic, and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those data points. However, there are not enough to flag as definitively fake.
• PRICING DIMENSION HEAVILY NEGATIVE: Of 6 reviews mentioning price, 4 are explicitly negative about overcharging or lack of estimates. Only 1–2 older reviews describe pricing as fair or acceptable. This dimension score reflects that imbalance.
• NO CALLBACK/COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One 2008 review and one 2024 review both describe failures to communicate or follow through on scheduling, indicating a possible systemic responsiveness issue.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in each dimension, the extreme age gap between positive and negative reviews — with the most damaging reviews being the most recent — means the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should weight the 2024 reviews heavily.

J. Valente Plumbing & Heating shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning multiple decades. While two reviews praise responsive service, quality workmanship, and long-term reliability, three reviews document serious failures: non-responsive callbacks, temporary repairs that failed, overcharging for minor work, and dismissive customer service. Professionalism and project completion are particularly problematic, with multiple mentions of poor follow-through and communication breakdowns. The company's experience level appears solid when work is completed, but execution and customer care are unreliable.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 2014–2021 with significant gaps. Most negative reviews are older (2014–2020), while the most recent review (2021) is highly positive. This may reflect either business improvement or inconsistent service quality.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Extreme polarization between 5-star and 1-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either highly variable service delivery or inconsistent staff performance.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews explicitly mention non-responsive callbacks and failure to return calls, indicating a systemic communication problem.
• TEMPORARY REPAIRS: One review documents a repair that failed shortly after completion, raising questions about workmanship quality and warranty practices.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: One review documents perceived overcharging ($150 for 10 minutes of work) with defensive customer service response.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), wide temporal spread, and extreme polarization in ratings. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence of both strong long-term customer relationships and serious service failures. Recent positive review is encouraging but insufficient to offset documented systemic issues with callbacks and follow-through.

Gold Medal Services exhibits a deeply polarized customer experience. While individual technicians frequently demonstrate strong professionalism, technical knowledge, and courteous behavior (earning high marks for experience and professionalism), the company is severely undermined by systemic issues in pricing practices and project completion reliability. Extensive evidence documents aggressive upselling, inflated estimates (often 2-10x market rates), and widespread appointment no-shows and cancellations. The Inside Edition scandal regarding fraudulent diagnostics appears repeatedly across reviews, suggesting a pattern rather than isolated incidents. Despite positive individual interactions, the company's business practices—particularly around pricing transparency and follow-through on commitments—create a fundamentally untrustworthy customer experience.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews reference Inside Edition exposé documenting the company charging $1,736 for a loose wire—this scandal is mentioned in at least 8 separate reviews and appears to be a documented public incident, not isolated complaints
• PATTERN OF FAKE REVIEWS DETECTED: Approximately 40-50 reviews show nearly identical positive language, generic praise without specifics, and suspiciously clustered 5-star ratings from June 2025 and May 2025. Examples include repetitive phrases like 'very knowledgeable,' 'professional,' 'answered all my questions' with minimal detail. These appear concentrated in specific date ranges (5/7/2025, 6/5-6/9/2025) suggesting potential review manipulation
• SYSTEMIC PRICING FRAUD: At least 45+ reviews document egregious overcharging: $1,100 for a thermostat (market rate ~$350), $1,400 for a simple valve (market rate ~$300), $2,750 for 6 smoke detectors (market rate ~$600), $589 to replace one light fixture, $17,000 HVAC estimate vs. $9,100 from competitor for identical unit. Pattern is consistent across years and technicians
• NO-SHOW AND CANCELLATION EPIDEMIC: 60+ reviews document missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, failure to call customers, and broken 'same-day guarantee' promises. Many customers report taking time off work only to be stood up with no communication
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY CRISIS: Service contract holders report being deprioritized; emergency appointments cancelled in favor of paying customers; 3+ month wait times for maintenance despite paid memberships
• FOLLOW-UP SERVICE FAILURE: 35+ reviews report inability to reach company for warranty work, follow-up repairs, or issue resolution. Customers report 20+ phone calls with no callbacks, emails ignored, and being transferred endlessly without reaching decision-makers
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews document poor installation practices (ductwork blocking attic access, improper drainage causing ceiling leaks, debris left in attic, exposed wires, improperly installed components)
• MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM DECEPTION: Customers report paying $250-$300 for 'priority service' memberships that provide no actual priority; dispatch fees still charged despite membership; automatic renewal without clear disclosure
• RECENCY CONCERN: While older reviews (2017-2019) show more balanced feedback, reviews from 2021 onward show dramatically increased complaints about pricing, reliability, and follow-up service, suggesting company-wide deterioration
• BBB COMPLAINTS REFERENCED: Multiple reviews mention filing complaints with Better Business Bureau and state attorneys general, suggesting formal regulatory scrutiny

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated with caution due to apparent review manipulation inflating the professionalism and experience scores, but the score accurately reflects a company with serious systemic problems in pricing practices and project completion reliability despite individual technician competence. The extensive documentation of pricing fraud, appointment failures, and follow-up service breakdowns across hundreds of independent reviews spanning multiple years suggests these are not isolated incidents but rather company-wide operational failures. Customers should expect high-quality individual technician work but should be extremely cautious about pricing transparency, appointment reliability, and warranty service follow-through.

AJ Perri presents a deeply polarized review profile. Individual technicians are frequently praised for professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and clear communication, which keeps the professionalism score from collapsing entirely. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming volume of reviews across many years describe quotes that are two to five times competitor rates, pressure-sales tactics, bait-and-switch behavior, and charges for unnecessary work — including multiple accounts corroborated by second opinions and a documented NJ state settlement. Project completion is severely undermined by a persistent pattern of missed appointments, no-shows without notification, warranty work left unfinished for weeks or months, and jobs that required multiple return visits to resolve or were never resolved at all. Experience scores moderately because many individual technicians are described as skilled and knowledgeable, but this is offset by numerous accounts of misdiagnosis, faulty installations (gas leaks, failed inspections, wrong-sized units), and technicians who appeared to prioritize upselling over accurate diagnosis.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW CLUSTER DETECTED: A block of approximately 19 reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-08 appear to be near-exact or exact duplicates of one another (same review text, same ratings, consecutive dates). This strongly suggests artificial review inflation. These duplicates were counted once each for scoring purposes but flagged as likely inauthentic.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The recent 2025 reviews (May–June) are overwhelmingly 5-star with brief, generic praise and no specifics about pricing or project outcomes. This contrasts sharply with the detailed, specific negative reviews spanning 2016–2024, suggesting a possible coordinated positive review campaign.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple years describe being quoted prices 2–5x above market rate, with second opinions consistently confirming overcharging. Multiple reviewers cite a 2017 NJ state settlement against AJ Perri for predatory pricing and unnecessary services.
• SAFETY INCIDENTS DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews describe gas leaks left after installation, a furnace that failed county inspection for improper ventilation, CO risk from improperly sealed exhaust pipes, and a cracked elbow pipe causing a gas leak found by the gas company — not AJ Perri.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY CRISIS: A very large number of reviews (30+) describe missed appointments, no-shows within promised windows, and no proactive communication. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviewers describe being unable to get warranty service honored, with units failing within weeks or months of installation and the company being unresponsive or demanding additional payment for covered repairs.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive negative reviews span 2016–2024. The 2025 reviews are almost entirely brief positives, many of which are duplicates. Scores weight the full corpus but the recent positive cluster is treated with reduced confidence due to suspected inauthenticity.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate and potentially fake positive reviews inflating the recent record, a well-documented multi-year pattern of predatory pricing and warranty failures, and multiple safety-related installation incidents reported across independent sources.