Find Nearby Plumbers In Asheville, North Carolina

Champion Comfort Experts shows significant inconsistency across service quality and pricing practices. While professionalism scores reasonably well (72) with multiple mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and respectful technicians, this is heavily undermined by severe pricing concerns (38) with consistent complaints of overcharging, lack of transparency, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is problematic (58), with multiple reports of delayed callbacks, unresolved issues, warranty disputes, and poor follow-through on customer concerns. Experience/workmanship is moderate (75), with some positive technical feedback offset by installation defects and miscommunication about system limitations. The company demonstrates a pattern of strong initial impressions followed by disappointing execution and customer service failures.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing complaints across 10 reviews spanning 2015-2024, including allegations of overcharging for simple tasks ($400 for vent installation with $50 parts; $250 for thermostat installation; $200+ for diagnostics), lack of upfront pricing transparency, and aggressive upselling
• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of poor follow-up and unresponsiveness—customers report calling 5-6 times for basic information, month-long delays for appointments, technician no-shows, and owner non-responsiveness to complaints and refund requests
• CRITICAL: Warranty and accountability issues—customers report being charged dispatch/service fees despite warranty coverage, installation defects requiring replacement, and conflicting information from different technicians
• Pattern of initial positive service followed by deterioration—several reviews note good first impressions but subsequent poor experiences, suggesting inconsistent quality control
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2017-2024, with recent reviews (2024, 2023) showing both extreme satisfaction and extreme dissatisfaction, indicating ongoing operational inconsistency
• Two 5-star reviews from 2024 and 2023 are detailed and specific (mentioning technician names, specific services, timeline details), suggesting authenticity; however, they are heavily outweighed by detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and documented grievances

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with caution but is directionally accurate—the company demonstrates competent technicians and punctuality but is severely compromised by predatory pricing practices, poor communication, and weak follow-through on customer issues. The score reflects a business that may perform adequately on initial service delivery but fails significantly on transparency, fairness, and accountability. Customers should expect professional initial contact but should be prepared for pricing disputes and difficulty obtaining refunds or corrections.

Autry Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: positive reviews praise friendliness, punctuality, and honesty, while negative reviews describe rude, irate plumbers who abandoned jobs and threatened legal action. Project completion is a significant concern, with at least two reviews describing work that was not finished or did not address the stated problem. Pricing drew serious criticism in multiple reviews, including one describing a $1,000 charge for a 5-hour job with no itemized bill provided until after payment, and another calling the charge high for minimal work done. On the positive side, several reviews highlight genuine honesty and technical integrity — plumbers who avoided unnecessary upsells — which partially supports the experience score, though technical failures in one review (releasing sewage into the house, inability to locate a clearly marked cleanout) weigh it down considerably.

• Three of the four positive reviews (2018 and 2020) are more than 3 years old and predate the most recent negative review (2021), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• The most recent review (2023) is positive and involves a named plumber (Conner), but it is a single data point and cannot offset the pattern of serious complaints.
• Two reviews describe plumbers threatening customers or abandoning jobs — these are severe professionalism and project completion failures that carry significant weight.
• The 2014 negative review is very old (10+ years) and was given reduced weight in scoring, but its pricing and billing concerns are echoed in more recent reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and named individuals, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with meaningful data across all four dimensions, but the wide variance in experience quality and the presence of serious misconduct complaints in multiple reviews means this score should be treated as a cautionary moderate-confidence signal rather than a reliable endorsement.

Bolton Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. On the positive side, recent reviews (2021–2024) highlight responsive technicians who solved problems quickly and professionally, including during a hurricane emergency. However, older reviews reveal serious concerns: a failed AC repair that lasted less than 24 hours with no managerial follow-through, repeated failures to respond to customer inquiries, technicians who refused to help after arriving on-site, and a pricing complaint where a near-trivial fix was billed at full rate with no accommodation. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged down significantly by the pattern of poor responsiveness and unresolved complaints. The more recent reviews are more favorable, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the volume of negative experiences cannot be ignored.

• Several reviews are significantly outdated (2012, 2015, 2018), which reduces their relevance to current performance. More recent reviews (2021–2024) trend more positively, suggesting possible improvement.
• The negative reviews are highly specific and credible — they include named managers, specific dollar amounts, and detailed timelines — lending them strong authenticity and weight.
• Only 7 total reviews are available, which is a very small sample size. Scores should be treated with caution as a few reviews in either direction could significantly shift results.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and date, and include both positive and negative experiences with specific details.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning over a decade, making it a low-reliability snapshot; the score should be treated as directionally informative but not statistically robust.

Plumb Clean shows a deeply inconsistent track record across these four reviews. Pricing is the one consistent bright spot — multiple reviewers explicitly noted affordability, no after-hours fees, and fair quotes. However, professionalism is severely undermined by two detailed 1-star reviews describing chronic tardiness, disappearing for hours, poor communication, and broken promises on scheduling. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: two reviewers had to hire a second plumber to finish or fix Plumb Clean's work, and one reviewer was never refunded after paying for incomplete service. Experience concerns are also significant — the first reviewer's replacement plumber found leaky connections and incorrect fittings, and the third reviewer's issues (broken screws, unattached drain, near-zero hot water pressure) were resolved by another plumber in under 45 minutes.

• The first reviewer explicitly identified one Yelp review as being written by Luke's wife (Michelle), suggesting at least one potentially fake or biased review exists in the contractor's broader review history — though not among the four reviews analyzed here.
• The two 5-star reviews are relatively brief and lack the operational detail present in the 1-star reviews, which may indicate limited depth of engagement or shorter/simpler jobs that did not stress-test reliability.
• All reviews are from 2020–2021 (oldest is December 2020, most recent is May 2021). No reviews from the past 12 months were provided, meaning current performance cannot be assessed. This is a significant recency gap.
• Only 4 reviews total — this is above the minimum threshold of 3 but still a very small sample. Scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all dated 2020–2021, and should be treated as a preliminary signal only — the small sample size and lack of recent data mean this score may not reflect the contractor's current quality or consistency.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile across only 3 reviews. Professionalism is significantly damaged by one reviewer reporting complete non-responsiveness over multiple weeks despite repeated contact attempts via text, email, and phone — an issue serious enough that only a negative public review prompted a response. Pricing drew explicit complaints, with one customer feeling overcharged $492 for under two hours of work, and another finding a quote entirely out of budget with no willingness to negotiate. Project completion is also problematic, as one reviewer had tub drains left unserviced despite being requested, and another was left without functioning toilets for two weeks with no follow-through. The sole positive review praised timely service and honest installation work, which provides the only upward pressure on the experience dimension.

• Very small sample size of only 3 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of long-term performance.
• Two of three reviews are negative (ratings of 1.0 and 2.0), suggesting a pattern of service and communication failures rather than isolated incidents.
• The 1-star reviewer explicitly states the contractor ignored all contact attempts until a public negative review was posted — this is a significant responsiveness and professionalism red flag.
• Reviews span approximately 5 months (Dec 2023 – May 2024), all within the past 12 months, so recency weighting does not significantly differentiate them.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and mixed ratings consistent with authentic feedback.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — the score directionally reflects serious concerns about responsiveness, pricing transparency, and job completion, but cannot be statistically trusted until a larger review sample is available.

The overwhelming majority of reviews for Rooter King describe deeply negative experiences across all four scored dimensions. Multiple customers report technicians arriving without proper equipment, failing to diagnose root causes, performing botched repairs, and charging repeatedly for the same unresolved problems — pointing to severe deficiencies in both professionalism and technical experience. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by accounts of abandoned or ineffective work, a no-show appointment, and a refusal to honor warranty callbacks. Pricing scores reflect widespread complaints of overcharging for poor or incomplete work, with one customer spending over $1,700 across multiple visits without resolution. The sole strongly positive review (5 stars, 2019) and one mildly positive review (4 stars, 2011) provide marginal uplift but are heavily outweighed by five detailed negative accounts, several of which are recent (2024).

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (March–April 2024) are both 1-star and describe serious misconduct including repeated billing for unresolved issues, lack of diagnostic equipment, and potential fraud. These should be weighted most heavily.
• POSITIVE REVIEW AGE: The only 5-star review is from April 2019 (5+ years old) and the 4-star review is from November 2011 (13+ years old). These may not reflect current business practices.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One reviewer explicitly documents a confirmed no-show appointment with no resolution, indicating reliability issues.
• POTENTIAL OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe being charged repeatedly for the same unresolved problem, with one customer spending over $1,700 across several visits. A second reviewer spent $1,100 with no resolution. This pattern across unrelated reviews is a serious red flag.
• THIRD-PARTY VALIDATION OF INCOMPETENCE: In the most detailed negative review, two separate competing companies independently confirmed that Rooter King failed to perform basic diagnostic steps (camera inspection) that should have been standard practice from the first or second visit.
• ARITHMETIC ERROR NOTED: One reviewer caught a billing arithmetic error in their favor, suggesting either carelessness or intentional overcharging.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while confidence in individual dimension scores is HIGH due to mention counts, the overall score reliability is MODERATE because the total review pool is small (7 reviews), the positive reviews are very old, and the negative reviews — though few — are highly detailed, recent, and corroborated by third-party professionals, making the low score directionally trustworthy.