Find Nearby Plumbers In Cary, North Carolina

Ultimate Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While professionalism scores reasonably well (68/100) with many customers praising friendly, responsive staff and timely arrivals, this is severely undermined by pervasive pricing complaints (38/100) appearing in nearly half of all reviews. Customers consistently report charges they perceive as excessive, opaque pricing structures, and lack of transparency before work begins. Project completion is moderate (62/100), with several reports of incomplete work, callbacks needed, and follow-up issues. Technical experience is solid (72/100) when work is completed, but numerous reviews describe misdiagnosis, poor problem-solving, and lack of proper inspection before charging. The company shows strong individual technician quality but systemic issues with pricing practices and quality control.

• CRITICAL: Pricing is the dominant complaint across 26 reviews (46% of total). Customers report charges ranging from $80 for a button push to $3,100 for routine work, with consistent allegations of overcharging, lack of upfront transparency, and refusal to adjust bills even when work is questioned.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to properly diagnose problems before beginning work or charging for work, leading to callbacks and additional expenses with other plumbers. Examples include snaking wrong lines, installing wrong fittings, misidentifying water heater issues.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUE: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention no callback, no response, or failure to show up for appointments, suggesting inconsistent communication systems.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Several reviews describe incomplete work requiring callbacks (3+ instances), poor cleanup (mud tracked through house, glue left on fixtures), and damage caused during repairs (broken toilet, damaged ceiling).
• RECENCY CONCERN: While older reviews (2011-2015) tend to be more positive, negative reviews cluster heavily in 2017-2022, suggesting potential deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Three reviews dated 2022-06-10 with identical timestamps and generic praise language (one about moving/packing services unrelated to plumbing) appear potentially fabricated and should be discounted.
• LIABILITY ISSUE: One review describes property damage (house flooding from failed fitting) and alleged avoidance of insurance claim resolution, representing serious legal/ethical concern.

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted as a warning signal. The score is pulled down significantly by overwhelming pricing complaints (26 mentions) and project completion issues (22 mentions), both backed by specific dollar amounts and detailed narratives. While professionalism and experience scores are respectable, they are contradicted by numerous accounts of poor diagnosis and incomplete work. The polarized review distribution (many 5-stars and many 1-stars with few middle ratings) and clustering of negative reviews in recent years suggest this company may have serious systemic issues with pricing transparency and quality control that outweigh individual technician competence. Customers should approach with caution and obtain detailed written estimates before authorizing work.

Raleigh Plumbing Department presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by two detailed negative reviews describing workers who were unresponsive, abandoned jobs, and showed no accountability, despite several positive reviews praising courteous and timely service. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with two highly detailed 1-star reviews describing failed inspections, abandoned construction work, attempted cover-ups of defects, and work left incomplete or dangerously incorrect — these are serious, specific allegations that carry substantial weight. On the positive side, several reviewers praised quick turnaround, satisfactory results, and professional demeanor for smaller jobs, suggesting the company may perform adequately on routine or smaller-scale work. Pricing received only two mentions — one positive (reasonable rates) and one implying exploitation — yielding a conservative limited-confidence score. The most recent review in the dataset is from late 2022 and is very brief, offering little usable detail.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2018–2020, with only one review from 2022. The dataset is largely over 2 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Two independent 1-star reviews (2018 and 2021) describe failed inspections, unresponsiveness after failed work, attempted concealment of defects, and job abandonment. These are specific, detailed, and credible allegations — not vague complaints.
• SCOPE LIMITATION NOTE: Multiple reviewers and one negative reviewer explicitly suggest the company may only be reliable for small jobs (e.g., water heater swaps, minor repairs) and is not suited for large or new construction projects.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: Several 5-star reviews from July 2020 are clustered within a 10-day window, are very brief, and lack specific detail. This pattern warrants caution — these reviews may be inflating the positive signal.
• INSPECTION FAILURE FLAG: At least two separate reviews describe work that failed official plumbing inspections, which is a significant indicator of workmanship quality risk.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the positive reviews are undermined by clustering and lack of detail, while the negative reviews are highly specific and credible, making the true performance picture likely worse than the averaged score suggests.

The review set presents a deeply mixed picture of All-Max Plumbing. Two positive reviews highlight a friendly, knowledgeable technician (Larry) and a responsive female owner who handled a stressful water line repair with calm professionalism, while a third positive review praises a technician's attitude and willingness to return for a follow-up issue. However, two substantive negative reviews describe serious workmanship failures in new construction homes — including a fitting left in a pipe causing sewage backup and a separate ongoing plumbing issue that the company refused to take responsibility for — which significantly drag down project completion and experience scores. Internal communication breakdowns noted in the 4-star review (wrong job details passed to technicians, a dismissive male owner) further temper confidence in professionalism. Pricing received limited but mildly positive mentions, with one reviewer describing the cost as fair.

• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-06-05) contains only a period as its text and provides zero usable data — excluded from scoring.
• The review corpus is very small (6 total, 5 usable), spanning from 2011 to 2021. Most reviews are older than 3 years, and only one review falls within the past 12 months (2021). Recency is poor and the score may not reflect current service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size severely limits reliability.
• The two 1-star reviews describe structural plumbing failures in new construction homes built by different builders (Taylor Morrison and Mungo Homes), suggesting a possible systemic quality issue with the company's new construction work specifically.
• A 10-year gap exists between the oldest and newest reviews, meaning the company's quality may have changed substantially over time. Scores should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small and temporally scattered review set (5 usable reviews spanning 10 years), significant negative evidence of workmanship failures, and only one review from the past 12 months.

American Leak Detection Raleigh presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores modestly — technicians are frequently described as personable and confident, but responsiveness and follow-through on complaints are consistently poor, with multiple reviewers reporting that calls for warranty work or refunds were ignored or denied. Pricing is a significant concern: charges of $400 for detection and $3,000+ for repairs are mentioned repeatedly, and two reviewers explicitly felt they received poor value given that the underlying problem was not fully resolved. Project completion is the weakest area — three of five reviews describe work that failed to fully resolve the leak, required repeat visits, or was abandoned without resolution, which is a serious red flag for a leak detection and repair company. Experience scores low-to-moderate: one reviewer praised the technician's diagnostic skill and another was satisfied with a quick find, but multiple reviews describe technicians who missed leaks, failed to scope the full extent of the problem, or performed substandard repair work such as unnecessary pipe angles and poor concrete finishing.

• Three of five reviews (60%) describe incomplete or failed leak resolution, suggesting a systemic pattern of not fully diagnosing or repairing the root problem.
• Two reviews explicitly mention being charged a second detection fee ($400) for the same leak that was not fully resolved on the first visit — a potential predatory billing concern.
• Multiple reviewers report that complaints, warranty requests, and refund requests were ignored or denied without explanation.
• One reviewer noted technicians appeared inexperienced ('just starting out in the industry'), raising concerns about consistent skill levels across staff.
• Review dates span 2018–2022; the most recent reviews (2020–2022) are predominantly negative, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time. The sole positive reviews are from 2018 and 2021.
• Only 5 reviews total — this is a very small sample size. The WW Score should be treated with caution and is not statistically robust.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied language consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning four years and should be treated as a preliminary signal only — a larger and more recent review sample would be required to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

This contractor receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across all dimensions. Five of six reviews are 1-star ratings citing severe professionalism failures including non-responsiveness, mask protocol violations, and rude customer service. Pricing complaints are explicit and damaging, with customers reporting 100% overcharges and quotes double or triple those from competitors. Project completion issues include incomplete work (missing pan installation), defective installations (leaking water heater), and failure to honor promised 24-hour service. The single 5-star review from 2020 praising professionalism and timeliness is heavily outweighed by consistent negative patterns from 2020-2023. The contractor appears to operate as a warranty-assigned vendor cutting corners to maximize profit at customer expense.

• SEVERE PATTERN: Five of six reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints—not generic criticism. This is not a fake review pattern but rather genuine customer dissatisfaction.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2020-2021 (older than 3 years). However, the oldest 1-star review is from 2023, indicating ongoing problems.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Multiple reviews mention same issues (non-responsiveness, overcharging, incomplete work), suggesting systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY COMPANY PATTERN: Three reviews explicitly mention being assigned through warranty companies (First American Home Warranty, Home Shield), suggesting this contractor may operate differently when dealing with warranty vs. direct customers.
• SAFETY VIOLATION: One review documents repeated COVID safety protocol violations despite customer complaints and company notification—indicates disregard for customer concerns.
• DEFECTIVE WORK: Water heater installation resulted in leaks causing additional damage—suggests inadequate technical execution or quality control.

This WW Score of 28.5 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on consistent, detailed, specific complaints across multiple dimensions from six reviews spanning three years, with no evidence of improvement. The single positive review is substantially outweighed by the pattern of documented failures in professionalism, pricing, completion, and safety.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. Review 1 (2018) describes inexperience and incomplete resolution with no refund offered, severely impacting project completion and experience scores. Review 2 (2018) praises responsiveness, courtesy, and quick service, elevating professionalism. However, both reviews are over 6 years old, and the sample size is critically small. The contradictory nature of these reviews (1-star vs 5-star) suggests highly inconsistent service or potentially different service teams.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2018 (6+ years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• CONTRADICTORY REVIEWS: Extreme polarity (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests either highly variable service quality or different service experiences.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINT: Review 1 indicates owner admitted fault but refused refund—potential ongoing customer service issue.
• LIMITED MENTIONS: All dimensions scored on 1-2 mentions only, resulting in LOW confidence across all metrics.

This score cannot be trusted. With only 2 reviews from 2018 and contradictory ratings, no meaningful assessment of current contractor performance is possible. At least 5-10 recent reviews are needed for reliable evaluation.