Find Nearby Plumbers In Hickory, North Carolina

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

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.

All County Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who frequently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly technicians — with multiple reviewers citing them as their go-to plumber for years. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: repeated no-shows and failure to follow through on scheduled appointments, at least one instance of faulty workmanship causing water damage to hardwood floors, a complaint about upselling unnecessary work, and a complaint about opaque emergency pricing practices. Pricing feedback is mixed — several reviewers praised fair or below-estimate billing, while others found the company very expensive for minor work. The volume of blank or content-free 5-star reviews (9 reviews with no text) slightly inflates the apparent rating and reduces confidence in the raw star average. The most recent substantive reviews (2020–2025) are generally positive but thin, making it difficult to assess current performance with high certainty.

• 9 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• 2 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (same text about a missed appointment window, one dated 2020 and one dated 2018), suggesting a possible copy-paste error or duplicate submission. Treated as a single incident for scoring purposes.
• 2 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (same text about calling ACP for a quick assessment, one dated 2020 and one dated 2018). Treated as a single incident.
• Several generic 5-star reviews contain only 1–2 sentences with no specific details (e.g., 'Amazing!!', 'Great team and great people', 'Awesome service!'). These were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• One review (1-star, 2012) alleges the company fabricated a code violation to upsell an unnecessary $900 job — a serious integrity concern that was verified by a second licensed plumber and inspector.
• One review (1-star, 2021) describes significant property damage (hardwood floor and carpet) caused by improper installation of an overflow drain — a serious workmanship failure.
• One review (1-star, 2018) describes opaque emergency upcharge pricing with no estimate provided upfront — a transparency concern.
• One review (1-star, 2022) describes being referred to a dishonest affiliated company — a business practice concern.
• The majority of reviews are older than 3 years. Only 3 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (2024–2025), and only 1 of those contains substantive text. Current performance cannot be assessed with high confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews date from 2018–2020. Only one review from 2025 and one from 2022 contain usable content. Scores are weighted toward the larger historical dataset.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is reduced by a significant number of blank reviews, two sets of duplicate reviews, several vague generic reviews, a sparse recent review record, and a recurring pattern of no-show and follow-through failures that represent a systemic — not isolated — concern.

SHA Mechanical demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, courtesy, and follow-through on complex HVAC work. However, a significant 1-star review from 2014 raises serious concerns about diagnostic practices and potential upselling tactics, alleging the company recommended unnecessary system replacement without proper testing. The pricing dimension is mixed: one detailed review highlights competitive pricing and fee credits, while the negative review criticizes service call fees charged even when work was deemed unnecessary. Experience scores are supported by mentions of technical knowledge and problem-solving, though the diagnostic failure in the negative review undermines confidence in this area.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 7+ years old (2016, 2017, 2022). Only one review from 2024. This limits confidence in current service quality.
• CRITICAL NEGATIVE REVIEW: The 2014 review alleges diagnostic malpractice (no meters used, immediate recommendation for full system replacement) and potential scam behavior. This is a serious red flag that contradicts the 'expert technician' claims in positive reviews.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews mention fair pricing and fee credits; negative review criticizes service call fees. Unclear if pricing practices have changed or if experiences vary significantly.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits statistical reliability. The single 1-star review carries disproportionate weight.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Four 5-star reviews with very positive language could suggest selection bias (satisfied customers more likely to review), though language variation and specific details reduce fake review suspicion.

This score should be treated with caution. While positive reviews are detailed and specific, the small sample size (5 reviews), age of most data (7-10 years old), and one serious allegation of diagnostic misconduct significantly reduce confidence in the overall rating. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from available data.

ENECO demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with technicians praised for responsiveness, courtesy, and going above and beyond expectations. Technical competence is evident in successful HVAC and plumbing repairs completed efficiently. However, project completion shows a significant concern: one review explicitly states that despite a technician's visit and assessment, the underlying plumbing issue was never resolved, and follow-up communication failed. This unresolved case substantially impacts the completion score. Pricing information is entirely absent from reviews, preventing assessment of value for money. The small sample size (4 reviews) and recency issues (oldest review from 2021) limit overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: One review (2023-02-28) describes an unresolved plumbing issue where the technician visited but the problem was never fixed, and follow-up communication failed (unreachable phone number). This is a significant project completion failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 2+ years old (2021-2022). Only 2 of 4 reviews are from 2023, limiting ability to assess current service quality.
• NO PRICING DATA: Zero mentions of pricing, value, or cost across all reviews. Cannot evaluate price-friendliness dimension.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators rather than definitive assessments.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only. The small sample size (4 reviews), significant age of most reviews, complete absence of pricing data, and one documented case of unresolved work with failed follow-up communication substantially limit confidence in this assessment. Additional recent reviews are needed for reliable scoring.

Minyard Plumbing has a generally positive track record across professionalism, punctuality, and customer interaction, with many reviewers explicitly praising courteous, on-time arrivals and friendly staff. However, two detailed and nearly identical 1-star reviews (likely from the same customer submitted twice) describe a significant failure: a misdiagnosed water heater repair that was not corrected without additional charges, and a refusal to apply prior payment toward a new installation — raising serious concerns about workmanship accountability and customer service policies. Pricing is mostly viewed as reasonable, though one reviewer noted the price felt slightly high relative to the work. The large volume of 'unknown' reviews with no text content (8 rated 5-star, 1 rated 1-star) cannot contribute meaningful dimension data and inflate the apparent review count without adding analytical value. Most reviews with usable content are from 2011–2022, with the most recent substantive reviews from 2022, meaning recency data is limited and the contractor's current performance is uncertain.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2016-12-11 are nearly identical in content and appear to be the same customer submitting the same complaint twice (water heater misdiagnosis). Only one instance was counted for scoring purposes, but this inflates the negative signal and may indicate a motivated reviewer.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 'Lee Ennis' dated 2022-03-07 are nearly identical in content describing the same job by Jeremiah and Norell. Only one was counted for scoring purposes.
• 8 reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no text content cannot be scored on any dimension. These reviews are analytically useless and may artificially inflate the star average on external platforms.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews with usable content are from 2011–2019. Only two substantive reviews are from 2020 or later (both from 2022). The contractor's current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• The water heater incident reviews describe both a project completion failure (problem recurred the next day) and an experience/knowledge failure (misdiagnosis), as well as a professionalism/ethics concern (refusal to honor implied warranty). These were factored into all three relevant dimensions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a meaningful volume of usable reviews across all four dimensions, but is tempered by duplicate submissions, a large number of content-free 'unknown' reviews, the age of most substantive reviews, and a documented serious service failure that raises legitimate concerns about workmanship accountability.