Find Nearby Plumbers In Greensboro, North Carolina

Mr. Rooter earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly, arrive promptly, and clean up after themselves. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished same-day or within the promised timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, or jobs that required callbacks. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing: a very large volume of reviewers — across many years and locations — explicitly describe charges as excessive, sometimes 2–4x competitor quotes, with several accounts of suspected upselling, undisclosed fees, and work billed but not performed. This pricing concern is too consistent and widespread to discount.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH VOLUME: Pricing complaints appear in well over 100 reviews spanning multiple years and locations. Specific complaints include: $400–$766 to snake a drain, $4,500+ for water heater replacements available elsewhere for $1,400–$2,100, $12,000 quotes for jobs completed by competitors for $1,100–$3,000, and charges for services (e.g., camera inspection) that were never performed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACKS: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, problems recurring within days, or original issues not addressed (e.g., kitchen sink still clogged after $4,500 job, drain re-clogged within 24 hours, shower still leaking after repair).
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 8–10 reviews describe technicians who did not arrive at scheduled times with no proactive communication, including one review describing a 5-hour wait with no contact.
• SERIOUS SAFETY ALLEGATION: One review (dated 2024-10-14, rating 0.5) alleges that dry-cutting through a slab without asbestos precautions caused $43,000 in out-of-pocket losses and 43 days of hotel displacement. This is an extreme outlier but warrants flagging.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several review texts appear verbatim across multiple dates (e.g., 'Fast, pleasant, and excellent service!' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Excellent service. Efficient and courteous...' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Nathan did an excellent job...' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05; 'Well done, completely satisfied.' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'good quality work' on 2024-09-17 twice). This suggests possible review duplication or platform aggregation artifacts. Confidence in the very recent review cluster is slightly reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS WITH 5-STAR RATINGS: A large number of reviews (estimated 80–100+) contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data for dimension scoring and inflate the raw star average without substantive evidence.
• FRANCHISE VARIABILITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic locations (Santa Cruz, Portland/Vancouver, Camp Verde/Verde Valley, Inland Empire, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate of what appears to be a multi-franchise dataset; individual location quality may vary significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2021–2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Reviews from 2012–2019 are present but weighted less heavily per scoring rules.

The WW Score of 72.4 carries HIGH statistical confidence given the very large review volume, but consumers should treat the pricing dimension (score: 42) as a serious and well-documented risk — the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints across years and locations is too consistent to dismiss, and prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain competing quotes before authorizing any work.

Professionalism scores reasonably well across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, and technician demeanor — however, this is meaningfully offset by multiple serious complaints including a technician with a gas leak oversight, a rude technician who refused to allow customers to speak, repeated no-shows, and a pattern of poor follow-through from office staff. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some customers praised fair or competitive pricing, a substantial number of reviews explicitly called out price gouging, unexpectedly high quotes, hidden charges, bait-and-switch tactics, and pressure sales — this is a recurring and credible pattern across multiple years and locations. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed same-day and efficiently, but there are multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, permit fraud, incomplete jobs, and technicians failing to return — including one customer strung along for over a year. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though several reviews document misdiagnosis, wrong parts ordered, and sending HVAC techs to do plumbing work.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10, 2025-05-26, 2025-06-02, and 2025-06-05 share identical dates with no timestamps, many are blank (rating only, no text), and the non-blank ones in these clusters are short and generic. This pattern is consistent with bulk review padding. Blank reviews (rating only, no text) account for approximately 33 of the 218 total reviews and have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• PERMIT FRAUD ALLEGATION: At least two reviews from the same apparent customer (dated 2024-05-23 and 2024-06-14) allege the company promised permits, failed to deliver, and then went silent — targeting a widow of a veteran. A third related review (2024-06-14) corroborates this. These are serious, specific, and credible allegations that significantly impact the project completion and professionalism scores.
• GAS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2022-01-11) describes a natural gas leak left unsealed for approximately 20 hours after a water heater installation, resulting in health impacts to the reviewer and their pet. This is a critical safety flag.
• REPEATED NO-SHOWS AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2015, 2020, 2021, 2024) describe appointments being cancelled last-minute, technicians failing to arrive within quoted windows, and no callbacks — indicating a systemic scheduling and accountability problem.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: One detailed review (2025-06-04) describes a phone rep promising transparent pricing, followed by a technician demanding $280 upfront — contradicting the company's own 'no surprise costs' website claim. The technician then selectively played a call recording to dispute the customer's account.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. Reviews from 2015 and earlier are given reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews (both positive and negative) are from 2020 onward and are well-represented in scoring.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK: Reviews appear to reference multiple franchise locations (Pearland TX, Monterey CA, South Florida, San Antonio TX, Yukon OK, Fallbrook CA, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate brand experience and may not accurately represent any single location.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (218 total, ~185 with usable data) spanning over a decade and multiple franchise locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume — however, the presence of suspected bulk-padded blank reviews, serious unresolved allegations of permit fraud and a gas safety incident, and a clear recurring pattern of pricing complaints and scheduling failures means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of brand-level performance, not a guarantee of quality at any individual franchise location.

The aggregate review pool spans multiple businesses operating under similar names (Pro Plumbing, Oro Pro Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Heating and Air), which introduces noise but also reflects a broad pattern of service quality. The majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, politeness, and clear communication, driving a moderate-to-good professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including complaints about rude staff, missed appointments, no-shows, and unresponsive management — prevents a high professionalism score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, non-itemized invoices, inflated quotes (sometimes 4x competitors), and questionable billing practices, pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were completed well and on time, but several reviews describe abandoned work, failed inspections, jobs requiring correction by other companies, and warranty disputes. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians, but offset by reviews citing misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and work that failed inspection multiple times.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to reference at least three distinct businesses — 'Pro Plumbing', 'Oro Pro Plumbing', and 'Pro Plumbing Heating and Air' — operating under similar names. Scores may reflect blended performance across different companies and should be interpreted with caution.
• 25 reviews contain no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 and 2025-05-10 share very similar generic phrasing ('great job', 'very professional', 'highly recommend') with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants reduced confidence in the upper end of positive scores.
• DRIVER CONDUCT REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews (2019, 2023, 2024) describe dangerous or rude driving by company vehicle operators. These are not directly scorable under the four dimensions but reflect negatively on overall brand professionalism.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A large volume of reviews are from 2024-2025 and carry full recency weight. Older reviews (pre-2020) were down-weighted in scoring. Negative patterns (overcharging, incomplete work, warranty disputes) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• BILLING AND WARRANTY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe non-itemized invoices, charges for work not performed, warranty fees on warranted equipment, and refusal to provide cost breakdowns. This is a recurring and credible pattern that materially depresses the pricing score.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required a second company to finish or correct, or failed inspection multiple times. This is a credible and recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume (196 total, 171 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the score direction, but reliability is moderated by the likely blending of multiple business entities under similar names, a detectable cluster of generic positive reviews suggesting possible review inflation, and consistent negative patterns around pricing transparency and project completion that appear across independent reviewers and multiple time periods.

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.