Find Nearby Plumbers In Concord, North Carolina

All American Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. The most recent reviews (2024–2025, predominantly from what appears to be a San Diego-area operation) are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians like Lance, Mason, Elliott, JoJo, Justin, Ryan, and Nick for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2021, many referencing a technician named Robert and home warranty company assignments, likely a different geographic location or franchise) describes a pattern of serious failures: no-shows, misdiagnoses, rude office staff, abandoned jobs, overcharging, and dishonest reporting to home warranty companies. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, problems made worse, and failure to follow through. Pricing scores are mixed — recent customers praise fair and transparent quotes, while older customers describe significant overcharging and bait-and-switch tactics. The experience dimension similarly splits between highly skilled recent technicians and incompetent or fraudulent older service calls.

• CRITICAL: The review pool appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct business entities or locations operating under the name 'All American Plumbing.' Recent reviews (2024–2025) reference San Diego-area technicians and a clearly different operational culture from older reviews (2012–2021) that repeatedly reference a technician named 'Robert' and home warranty fraud patterns. Scores should be interpreted with this bifurcation in mind.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews from late 2021 (dates: 2021-12-01 to 2021-12-02) are clustered within 48 hours, are unusually generic in praise, and reference a Texas/Houston-area business context inconsistent with the San Diego reviews. One reviewer (2022-01-25) explicitly flags these as suspected fake reviews posted by California residents for a Houston business.
• 14 reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent 80+ reviews (2024–2025) are almost entirely 5-star and reflect a high-performing San Diego operation. The older reviews (pre-2023) contain a disproportionate number of 1-star reviews describing a pattern of fraud, rudeness, and incompetence. If evaluating only the last 12 months, scores would be substantially higher across all dimensions.
• PATTERN OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS — HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers assigned through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, Old Republic, 2-10, First American). These reviews describe a consistent pattern of misdiagnosis, upselling, no-shows, and dishonest reporting to warranty companies. This pattern is strong enough to suggest systemic rather than isolated failures in that operational context.
• ONE REVIEW (2024-07-06, 1-star) alleges a company truck attempted to run the reviewer off the road. This is an isolated conduct allegation that cannot be scored but is flagged as a serious concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2023-06-23, 1-star) contains an allegation of spying on an elderly customer and reporting personal activities to an HOA. This is an isolated but serious allegation flagged for awareness.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews across different years cite a receptionist named 'Jennifer' as rude, condescending, and argumentative. This is a recurring named pattern suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the office level, not isolated to field technicians.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool almost certainly spans two distinct business entities or operational eras — the recent San Diego operation (2024–2025) would score approximately 88–92 on its own, while the older review corpus (pre-2023, likely a different location) would score approximately 35–45, and consumers should research which entity they are engaging before relying on this blended score.

Providence Plumbing scores strongly across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — multiple reviewers explicitly call the team professional, courteous, and friendly over many years of service. Project completion is well-supported, with several reviews noting same-day or next-day responses, timely completions, and jobs finished without issue. Experience is backed by specific examples such as a creative water heater workaround using a tempering valve and a difficult faucet replacement completed efficiently, demonstrating genuine technical competence. Pricing receives positive but limited mentions, with two reviewers calling prices fair or well worth it, keeping that dimension at moderate confidence. The overall picture is of a reliable, long-tenured family plumbing business with a loyal repeat customer base.

• All 16 reviews are 5-star ratings with zero negative or mixed feedback — this is statistically unusual and warrants mild caution, though many reviews do include specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• One review consists only of a period ('.') and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• Several reviews lack specific dates and are recorded as 2024-03-15 or 2024-03-08 with identical timestamps, suggesting possible batch imports rather than organic submission dates — recency weighting is uncertain for those entries.
• A significant portion of reviews (6 of 15 usable) are from 2021 or earlier, with the oldest dating to 2016 and 2019. More recent reviews (2024) are present but the older reviews carry reduced recency weight.
• Some reviews use generic praise without specifics (e.g., 'great job', 'excellent people', 'absolute professionals') which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points, though enough reviews do provide concrete detail to support the scores.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — it is supported by 15 usable reviews spanning several years with enough specific detail to validate the scores, but the universal 5-star pattern, several generic reviews, and uncertain date integrity prevent a HIGH overall confidence designation.

Brian Bearden consistently receives strong praise for professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and clear communication across many years of reviews. Pricing is highlighted favorably in several reviews, with customers noting reasonable rates, accurate quotes, and no upselling — one reviewer even confirmed his rates came in lower than two competing quotes. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished efficiently and thoroughly, including one notable instance where Brian discovered and repaired an additional cracked pipe at no extra charge. Workmanship and technical skill are affirmed across multiple reviews covering a variety of plumbing tasks including fixture installation, drain replacement, pressure issues, and rough-in work. However, the majority of reviews are significantly older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months (October 2024), which meaningfully limits confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 15 reviews is from the past 12 months (October 2024). The remaining 14 reviews span 2010–2020, with the bulk concentrated in 2013–2018. This score may not reflect current performance.
• THIN DETAIL: Several reviews ('Very well. Quickly fixed', 'Great', 'Extremely well.', 'Very good, satisfied with work.', 'Loved the experience!!!') provide no specific, actionable detail and contribute minimal scoring evidence. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• ALL 5-STAR PATTERN: Every single review is rated 5.0 stars. While the detailed reviews appear genuine and specific, the complete absence of any sub-5-star rating across 15 reviews warrants mild caution. No fake review pattern was definitively detected, but the uniformity is noted.
• SAMPLE SIZE: 15 total reviews is a relatively small dataset. Scores carry less statistical reliability than a contractor with 50+ reviews.

This WW Score is moderately reliable for historical performance but should be treated with caution as a predictor of current service quality, given that 14 of 15 reviews are more than 4 years old and only one recent data point exists.

Calvin at CAC Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions from every reviewer. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with all five reviewers explicitly praising his attitude, punctuality, and responsiveness — including same-day and next-morning service in multiple cases. Pricing is described as reasonable or fair by three reviewers, supporting a solid but not exceptional price-friendly score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing fully resolved issues ranging from emergency drain problems to a complete master bathroom remodel, with no mention of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is evidenced by the breadth and complexity of jobs completed, including tankless water heater installations, drain line relocation, and full bathroom plumbing remodels, though the sample size remains small.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific job details and varied language, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• Two of the five reviews are dated 2020, making them over four years old. These carry reduced weight under recency rules. Only three reviews fall within the past 24 months, and only two within the past 12 months.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews total). Scores should be treated as directionally useful but not statistically robust.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity and variety of the reviews, but should be treated with caution due to the small sample size of 5 reviews and the fact that two reviews are more than four years old.

Doug's Home Repair demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication and courteous service across multiple reviews, earning an 82 score. Project completion shows mixed results: several jobs were completed successfully and on time, but two significant failures (no-show appointment, poor flooring installation) lower confidence to 75. Pricing is inconsistent—some customers praise fair rates while one customer felt overcharged for minimal effort, resulting in a conservative 68 score. Technical experience is solid with competent plumbing and repair work, though the flooring quality issue suggests inconsistency across service types. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and professionalism but notable reliability and quality control concerns.

• Two severe negative reviews (no-show appointment in 2022, poor flooring installation in 2023) significantly impact reliability assessment despite positive majority
• Pricing feedback is contradictory: one customer praised 'minimum charge' and 'reasonable pricing' while another felt overcharged $125 for ineffective work; suggests inconsistent pricing practices or service quality variance
• Quality control appears inconsistent across service types: plumbing work generally praised, but flooring installation explicitly criticized as 'horrible quality' with property damage (cut marks on deck)
• Most recent negative review is from October 2024 (drain cleaning complaint), indicating ongoing issues; most positive reviews are older (2022-2023)
• Review dates show recency bias: 3 reviews from 2024, 2 from 2023, 3 from 2022, 2 from 2023; recent data is mixed

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by multiple mentions, the presence of two severe failures (no-show and poor workmanship) and contradictory pricing feedback suggest Doug's Home Repair has inconsistent execution. The October 2024 negative review indicates recent problems persist. Customers should verify service type and request references before committing.

The majority of reviewers praised the contractor's friendliness, punctuality, and respectful attitude, supporting a solid professionalism score. Project completion was generally positive — most jobs were finished on time and without lingering issues — but one notable review described water leaking everywhere, holes poked in walls, and an insurance claim, which meaningfully dragged down both the completion and experience scores. Pricing was described as 'reasonable' or 'average' by several reviewers, though one noted sticker shock, keeping the price score moderate rather than high. Workmanship quality was generally adequate but not exceptional, with the damaging installation incident being a significant red flag that tempers the experience score. Overall the contractor performs reliably in most cases but has at least one documented instance of serious workmanship failure.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A large cluster of reviews (9 reviews) share the exact same date of 2007-02-14, which is highly suspicious and may indicate bulk-submitted or fabricated reviews. Confidence in the aggregate score is reduced as a result.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2005 and 2008 — none are within the past 12 months or even the past decade. This data is extremely outdated and may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• OUTLIER INCIDENT: One reviewer (3-star, 2007-02-14) reported water leaking during installation, holes poked in walls, and stated their insurance company indicated this contractor had done similar damage to others in the past. This is a serious workmanship and liability concern.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW DETECTED: One review (2006-09-06) appears to describe an automotive A/C service ('returned my car,' 'antifreeze,' 'coolant'), which is unrelated to plumbing or HVAC home services. This review was excluded from scoring as it likely belongs to a different business.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical language ('friendly,' 'reasonable rates,' 'would recommend to anyone') with little specific detail, which is consistent with either coached reviews or low-effort submissions. Treat positive scores with caution.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust due to the extreme age of all reviews (2005–2008), a suspicious cluster of 9 reviews on a single date suggesting possible fake or bulk submissions, one serious documented workmanship incident, and one review that appears to belong to a different business entirely.