Find Nearby Plumbers In Charlotte, North Carolina

Lining Works demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions based on three recent reviews (July–September 2024). Project completion is the strongest area, with all three reviews explicitly praising fast response times and successful problem resolution without abandonment. Professionalism is well-supported by detailed mentions of organization, efficiency, friendliness, and transparency. Pricing receives one explicit mention of fair and transparent costs. Technical experience is evident in the sophisticated trenchless pipe-lining solution described in the most detailed review. However, the small sample size (n=3) limits confidence in these scores.

• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or complaints—this is atypical and warrants caution. While the reviews contain specific details (tree roots, crawlspace, drain clogging), the uniformly perfect ratings could indicate selection bias or a small sample of satisfied customers only.
• Sample size is very small (n=3). Scores should not be considered reliable for major business decisions until more reviews accumulate.
• No reviews older than 12 months; all are recent (July–September 2024), which is positive for recency but does not address the uniformity concern.

This WW Score of 89.2 should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and the absence of any negative feedback or critical comments, which is statistically unusual and may not represent the full customer experience spectrum.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor across multiple named technicians including Troy, Adam, Tim, Aaron, Matt, and others, driving a strong but not perfect professionalism score. Pricing receives a moderately positive score — many reviewers explicitly call out fair, reasonable, or competitive pricing and instances where the company saved customers money, but a meaningful cluster of negative reviews cite overcharging, inflated estimates, and refusal to negotiate, which meaningfully pulls the score down. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as completed correctly and on time, but several serious negative reviews describe abandoned work, misdiagnosed problems, warranty disputes, and jobs left incomplete with no follow-up, preventing a top-tier score. Experience is generally rated highly, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnostics, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship, though a handful of reviews describe poor installations, code violations, and misdiagnoses that temper the score. The WW Score of 79.4 reflects a company with a strong positive track record but a non-trivial pattern of serious complaints that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Excellent service!!! The faucet water control handle broke off...' appears twice with dates 2025-06-02 and 2025-05-30 — identical text, likely a duplicate submission or copy-paste fake review.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I reached out for a couple of repairs I needed and was provided with upfront estimates...' appears twice with dates 2024-08-10 and 2024-07-09 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'The only plumber I use (and you should use)...' appears twice with dates 2024-06-06 and 2021-06-30 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I found my plumber for life. This company is very honest...' appears twice with dates 2024-06-06 and 2023-08-06 — identical text.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'I use and recommend Mike The Plumber every time...' appears in near-identical form twice (2025-05-07 and 2024-06-06) with only minor wording differences, suggesting coordinated or recycled review content.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2024-06-06 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps suggests possible bulk import or artificial review injection rather than organic posting.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2023-06-07 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps raises the same concern.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large block of reviews all dated exactly 2023-08-07 00:00:00 with no specific timestamps raises the same concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating (at least 8 identified). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substantive feedback.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Several reviews reference '1st Home and Commercial Services' and HVAC work, which appears to be a different company entirely from Mike the Plumber / Mike & Sons Plumbing LLC. These reviews may have been incorrectly attributed and were excluded from scoring where clearly unrelated.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews describe incomplete work, misdiagnosis, warranty refusal, unapproved charges, no-shows, and unresponsive owners after payment. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years (2012–2025), suggesting a recurring pattern of post-payment service failure.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Several reviewers explicitly describe estimates they considered grossly inflated (e.g., $2,984 vs $400 from a competitor; $6,500 vs $2,500; $1,500/hr equivalent charges), which materially impacts the pricing dimension score.
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe the owner (Mike) as unresponsive after payment, dismissive of complaints, and in one case verbally abusive. This is a notable flag for customer service reliability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with specific timestamps are from 2023–2025, providing reasonably current data. However, the bulk-dated clusters (2023-06-07, 2023-08-07, 2024-06-06) make it difficult to assess true recency distribution with confidence.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, suspicious bulk-dated review clusters, blank rating-only submissions, and a consistent pattern of serious post-payment complaints spanning multiple years — prospective customers are strongly advised to read negative reviews in full before hiring.

All About the Pipes has a strong and well-documented track record of professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and responsive office staff — particularly owner Mary. Project completion scores are high, with most jobs described as finished same-day or as promised, and several reviewers noting the company honored callbacks and stood behind their work. Experience scores are also strong, with multiple reviewers highlighting that AATP solved problems that other plumbers could not, demonstrating above-average diagnostic and technical skill. However, pricing is a consistent point of friction: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly described costs as high, surprising, or not clearly communicated upfront, which meaningfully suppresses the pricing dimension. A small number of negative reviews citing unprofessional behavior, a no-call-back incident, an incompetent technician, and a rude scheduling interaction prevent the professionalism score from reaching the highest tier.

• Six reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (2020-06-10, 3-star) appears to be a misplaced review referencing a park with rides — almost certainly posted to the wrong business. This was excluded entirely.
• Two reviews dated 2022-06-08 and 2022-06-10 are nearly identical in phrasing and content (both praising Mary for diagnosing a sewerage pump issue and scheduling same-day service). These appear to be duplicate or coordinated reviews and were treated as a single data point for scoring purposes.
• The review corpus spans from 2011 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring, as staff, ownership structure, and service quality may have changed. The majority of reviews are from 2015–2021, which is outside the most recent 12-month window.
• One 1-star review (2018-01-30) describes a technician who was clearly untrained and had to be instructed over the phone, which is a significant quality control concern. One 1-star review (2021-01-22) alleges the owner is rude unless being paid. One 1-star review (2023-06-10) reports a complete failure to return a call. One 1-star review (2015-08-24) describes being abandoned mid-project on a time-sensitive issue. These negative signals are real and were factored into scoring.
• Pricing complaints are spread across multiple years (2016, 2017, 2019, 2025) and are specific and credible — including one instance of a per-visit fee not being disclosed upfront, and another of an $800 bill for a straightforward sink replacement. This is a recurring and documented pattern, not an isolated incident.
• Several 5-star reviews use generic praise with no specifics (e.g., 'Very professional.', 'Great. Guys came and removed old tank...', 'They do a very good job every time I use them.'). While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary value and were weighted accordingly.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (130 total, 124 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall confidence, though users should note that pricing concerns are a documented and recurring pattern, and the most recent 12 months represent only a small fraction of the total review base.

North Mecklenburg Plumbing has a strong overall track record built across more than two decades of reviews, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive scheduling. Professionalism is the most frequently cited dimension and scores well, though it is tempered by a handful of credible negative reviews describing rude behavior, phone communication failures, and one instance of a plumber leaving a job mid-task. Pricing scores moderately well — multiple reviewers explicitly praised fair and competitive rates compared to larger companies, but several negative reviews allege overcharging, unnecessary upselling, and inflated service call fees, which meaningfully drag the score down. Project completion is solid but not perfect; most jobs are described as finished correctly and on time, yet a few reviews describe recurring issues, incomplete fixes requiring multiple return visits, and at least one case where a repair was not actually performed despite being charged for. Experience scores well overall, with numerous reviewers noting skilled diagnostics and knowledgeable technicians, though a small number of reviews describe misdiagnosis or inability to resolve the problem.

• Approximately 12 reviews contain only 'unknown', a single period, 'See above', or 'Issue resolved' with no substantive content — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Three reviews have no text at all (blank body) and were excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews dated 2016-07-16 and 2016-07-17 are nearly word-for-word identical ('No problems at all. I was very nervous about the job and Robbie was great...') — possible duplicate or fake review; treated as a single data point.
• A large portion of reviews (roughly 40+) are older than 5 years, and many are from 2009–2003 or earlier. Recency weighting was applied — reviews from 2024–2025 were given higher weight in scoring. The score reflects a company that appears to have maintained reasonable consistency but has notable negative incidents in recent years.
• Several 5-star reviews from the 2024-06-09 batch share the same date, suggesting a possible bulk submission or review solicitation campaign. Language varies enough to not flag as clearly fake, but confidence is slightly reduced for that cluster.
• Negative reviews (1-star) are spread across multiple years and describe distinct, specific incidents — overcharging, incomplete repairs, upselling, and communication failures — which lends them credibility and prevents dismissal as outliers.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over two decades, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should note that credible negative reviews citing pricing disputes, incomplete work, and professionalism failures are present across multiple years and meaningfully constrain the score below what the volume of 5-star reviews alone might suggest.

Carolina Plumbing Pros (now operating under Swift Brothers) earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and same-day service availability. Experience and workmanship scores are similarly solid, with multiple named technicians — RB, Jordan, Scott, Mykola, and Stefan — repeatedly cited for technical competence and problem-solving. Project completion is generally positive, though two notable negative reviews describe incomplete or counterproductive work: one technician created a new leak while fixing another and then declined to resolve it, and a separate case involved a technician leaving without completing a job assessment. Pricing is the weakest dimension, dragged down significantly by multiple credible complaints about prices nearly doubling following the Swift Brothers acquisition, as well as several individual reviews citing quotes that were substantially higher than competitors. The overall score reflects a company with genuine service strengths but a meaningful and recurring pricing concern that prospective customers should investigate before engaging.

• Three blank reviews with only a 5-star rating and no text were detected (dated 2024-08-13 and 2024-09-12). These provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints cluster around and after the Swift Brothers acquisition (late 2024 onward), suggesting a structural change in pricing policy rather than isolated incidents. At least 3 reviews explicitly cite doubled prices post-acquisition.
• A disproportionate number of reviews are 5-star with named technician praise (RB in particular appears in 10+ reviews). While this may reflect genuine satisfaction, the volume of similarly structured positive reviews warrants mild caution. No definitive fake review pattern detected, but the repetition of RB mentions is notable.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (2015–2022 range). Given the ownership change to Swift Brothers, older reviews may not accurately reflect current service quality or pricing. More weight was given to reviews from 2024–2025.
• One 1-star review (2023-03-25) appears to be copy-pasted in full twice within the same review submission. This was counted as a single review.
• The negative review from 2024-12-11 describes a technician creating a new plumbing problem and then directing the customer to find another company — a serious project completion failure that was factored into the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (88 reviews spanning 2015–2025) and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the post-acquisition pricing complaints heavily and treat pre-2024 reviews with caution as they may not reflect current pricing or ownership practices.

Bliss Plumbing earns strong marks across professionalism, experience, and project completion, driven by a large volume of recent 2024–2025 reviews praising named technicians (Andrey, Tony, Collin, Jesse) for punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship. However, the pricing dimension is meaningfully dragged down by two credible negative reviews: one alleging a grossly inflated quote ($3,000–$4,500 for what another plumber fixed for $150), and one noting the price was high with an unreliable office — these are serious red flags that prevent a higher pricing score despite some positive value mentions. Project completion is also modestly penalized by a 1-star review describing an incomplete and non-functional water softener installation with no returned calls, and a 2-star review of an improperly installed microwave. The most severe negative review — describing threatening behavior by the owner and privacy violations — significantly impacts the professionalism score despite the overwhelming volume of positive reviews, as it is a detailed, credible, first-person account that was submitted twice (likely for emphasis).

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review describing threatening behavior by owner Joel Bliss (dated 2023-06-06) was submitted twice with nearly identical text. This appears to be intentional emphasis by the reviewer rather than a fake review, and has been counted once for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant number of 5-star reviews contain no review text (6 blank or near-blank entries rated 5 stars). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star average.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The majority of substantive positive reviews are from 2025 and late 2024, which is favorable. However, several negative reviews date from 2018–2020 and may reflect older operational issues. The 2023 threatening-behavior review is more recent and concerning.
• PRICING RED FLAG: One review explicitly alleges the company quoted $3,000–$4,500 for a repair that cost $150 with another plumber, accusing Bliss of attempting to 'rip off' the customer. This is a serious allegation that significantly lowers pricing confidence.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: A detailed 1-star review alleges the owner sent threatening texts, staff contacted the customer's mortgage company without authorization, and employees called from multiple numbers to harass the customer. This is a significant professionalism concern that cannot be dismissed despite the volume of positive reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: One review describes a water softener installation that failed twice, with no returned calls after four messages left — indicating a potential pattern of poor follow-through on complex or multi-visit jobs.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews use very brief, non-specific language ('Simply the best!', 'Great company and people', 'Amazing work') with no job details. While not conclusive of fake reviews, these add limited evidentiary value and were weighted accordingly.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (54 total, 48 with usable data) spanning 2015–2025, with strong recency in positive reviews; however, the score should be treated with moderate caution due to credible negative reviews alleging price gouging, threatening owner behavior, and incomplete work — issues serious enough that prospective customers should read the negative reviews in full before hiring.