Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, North Carolina

Only 2 of 6 reviews contained usable content, severely limiting the reliability of this analysis. The one detailed review from 2010 describes an efficient plumber with strong technical knowledge and good communication, but explicitly notes he is not the cheapest option, which tempers the pricing score. The 2017 review describes a successful faucet replacement that took several weeks due to parts sourcing and scheduling conflicts, which slightly reduces the project completion score. All other reviews either had unknown content or no text, contributing nothing to the scoring.

• 3 reviews have 'unknown' as their text — these are entirely unusable and may represent placeholder or incomplete review submissions.
• 1 review references a 'previous report' with a 2-star rating but provides no detail — this negative signal cannot be scored but suggests a prior negative experience exists that is unaccounted for.
• All reviews are significantly outdated: the most recent usable review is from 2017, and the most detailed review is from 2010. This contractor's current quality cannot be assessed from this data.
• With only 2 usable reviews spanning over 7 years, this score should be treated as highly unreliable and not representative of current performance.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 2 usable reviews, all data being over 6 years old, and a referenced but undetailed 2-star review that could not be scored — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Mintz Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with multiple reviewers praising fast emergency response times, courteous service, and competent workmanship on water heater and pressure-related jobs. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews as reasonable, though limited data prevents a high-confidence pricing score. The single 1-star review is notable and directly relevant to professionalism: a staff member reportedly hung up on a customer mid-sentence after being told they went with another company, which meaningfully drags the professionalism score down from what would otherwise be a very high mark. The overall review base is small at only 5 reviews, which limits the reliability of any score produced.

• Very small review sample (5 reviews total) — scores should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative of consistent service quality.
• Four of the five reviews are from 2021 or earlier, with the most recent being October 2021 — all reviews are more than 1 year old and may not reflect current service quality.
• The 1-star review describes a specific, credible negative interaction involving rude staff behavior (hanging up on a customer), which is a meaningful professionalism concern and has been factored into the professionalism score.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and tone, and include a negative review, which adds credibility to the overall set.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all older than 1 year, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment — prospective customers are strongly encouraged to seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

Progressive Service Company has a deeply mixed record across a large review set spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores moderately well — many reviewers praise individual technicians as polite, punctual, and courteous — but this is significantly offset by multiple serious complaints about rude managers, a technician who refused to leave until paid, intimidating behavior, and a no-show appointment with no call. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with a substantial number of reviewers explicitly calling out extreme overcharging, markups of 4000% on parts, inflated labor quotes, and deceptive billing practices; only a minority of reviewers described pricing as fair or reasonable. Project completion is middling — many jobs were completed successfully, but there are notable failures including recurring breakdowns after repair, abandoned work, a sewer line left uncapped leaking raw sewage, and a water heater job that required multiple return visits. Experience is similarly split: many technicians are praised as knowledgeable and skilled, but multiple reviews document misdiagnoses (e.g., falsely claiming a heat exchanger was broken, recommending a full AC replacement for a $5 capacitor fix, and incorrect wiring left as a fire hazard), which meaningfully drag the score down.

• 14 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews from May 2025 and September 2024 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Good job', 'excellent', 'Great service!') with no specifics. While not conclusively fake, they follow a pattern of low-detail 5-star reviews that may inflate perceived sentiment.
• Two reviews (2016-05-04 and 2016-05-05) appear to be near-identical duplicate submissions from the same customer about the same job (CJ installing toilets). Only one was counted per dimension.
• A significant cluster of negative reviews (ratings of 1–2) spans multiple years and describes systemic issues: price gouging, misdiagnosis, intimidation, non-responsiveness of management, and unlicensed technicians. These are not isolated incidents and suggest recurring operational problems.
• Review dated 2019-09-21 explicitly states the technician had no license — a serious professional and legal concern.
• Review dated 2019-06-27 describes electrical work left out of code and posing a fire risk — a serious safety and workmanship concern.
• Review dated 2014-04-25 describes technicians refusing to leave the customer's home until paid and threatening to increase the bill while waiting — a significant professionalism and conduct flag.
• Many reviews are older than 3 years. Reviews from 2012–2018 make up a large portion of the dataset. Recency weighting was applied conceptually, but the volume of older reviews means the score reflects a long historical average rather than current performance.
• The company appears to operate under multiple brand names (Progressive Service Company, Swift Brothers Plumbing) following acquisitions, which may affect consistency of service quality across the review period.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (136 total, 122 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but consumers should note that the score reflects a long historical average with significant variance — individual experiences range from excellent to severely problematic, and systemic pricing and workmanship complaints are well-documented and recurring.

Professionalism scores moderately well overall, with a large volume of reviews praising individual technicians for punctuality, courtesy, shoe covers, communication, and friendly demeanor. However, this is significantly tempered by a meaningful cluster of serious complaints about no-shows, failure to call back, dismissive attitudes, and at least one technician who complained to a customer about his own workload. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple explicit complaints about overpriced quotes, high hourly rates, surprise fees, and a dispatch/trip charge model that customers found predatory — one reviewer paid $350 for a $60 part and 20 minutes of work, and another was quoted $1,027 for simple fixture hanging. Project completion is mixed: many reviews confirm jobs were finished well and on time, but there are notable failures including abandoned work, repeated failed inspections, unresolved repairs requiring callbacks, and at least one case where four visits failed to clear a drain. Experience is generally positive with many reviewers praising technician knowledge and problem-solving, but undercut by several cases of misdiagnosis, a technician who did not know an error code, and an installation that failed to meet code and caused a gas smell.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A block of reviews dated 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 are near-identical or word-for-word duplicates of reviews dated 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05 respectively. Similarly, reviews from 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04 appear duplicated. This pattern strongly suggests artificial review inflation or a platform/submission error. Confidence in the recent review cluster is reduced.
• REVIEW VOLUME IMBALANCE: A very large proportion of 5-star reviews appear in a compressed recent date range (June 2025), many with minimal detail or empty text bodies. This is consistent with a review solicitation campaign and may not reflect the full customer experience.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Approximately 12-15 reviews contained no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2015 through 2024 and include serious complaints about no-shows, property damage, dishonest billing, and failure to honor warranty work. The high volume of recent 5-star reviews may be masking a more complex service history.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINT: At least two reviews allege that Michael and Son caused physical damage to the customer's home (broken HVAC pan causing ceiling leak; mold from water damage) and then refused to accept responsibility or provide refunds. This is a significant red flag.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years cite overpriced quotes, high dispatch fees, and a business model perceived as designed to generate revenue from assessment fees rather than completing work. This is not isolated and warrants a low pricing score.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments, with the company claiming they came and received no answer — a pattern that several customers explicitly refuted with evidence (Ring cameras, no missed calls, waiting outside).

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate review entries that inflate recent positive signals, a meaningful volume of serious negative reviews describing systemic issues with no-shows, pricing, and accountability, and the presence of property damage allegations that were not resolved to customer satisfaction.

This plumbing company exhibits a stark bifurcation in customer experience. Positive reviews consistently praise technical skill, responsiveness, and fair pricing from certain technicians (particularly Mark and George at Seaside Plumbing locations). However, a substantial volume of negative reviews reveal serious professionalism issues including rudeness, threats, no-shows, and aggressive payment collection tactics—particularly attributed to an owner named Texas/Tex. Pricing complaints center on overcharges, hidden fees, and inflated estimates. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, failure to follow up, and ghosting customers. The company appears to operate multiple locations or franchises with highly inconsistent service quality.

• CRITICAL: Two distinct business entities appear in reviews—'Seaside Plumbing' (consistently 5-star, professional) and 'Speedy Plumbing' (mixed 1-5 star, owner 'Texas/Tex' frequently cited negatively). These may be separate companies or locations but are conflated in this dataset. Seaside reviews are predominantly positive; Speedy reviews show severe owner-related issues.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (at least 8+) describe identical problematic behavior from owner 'Texas/Tex': aggressive tone, threats of legal action, refusal to discuss pricing, verbal abuse, and confrontational payment demands. This is not isolated—it is a documented pattern.
• NO-SHOW AND GHOSTING: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention no-shows, failure to return calls, or abandonment of service requests. One review notes the company closed a service request without completing work or providing documentation.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: At least 10 reviews cite surprise charges, hidden fees, emergency rate markups not disclosed upfront, inflated parts markups (200%+), and charges for work not authorized. One review documents $415 for a toilet repair with no emergency rate disclosure.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians either overestimating work scope or charging for incomplete/failed repairs. One review documents a septic pump misdiagnosed as 'burnt' when it was only clogged; another describes a $930 overcharge for unnecessary work.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 5 reviews describe jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, or problems recurring after service.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Beyond owner behavior, technician conduct issues include rudeness to customers, dismissive attitudes, and one instance of a technician making inappropriate comments to a minor.
• RECENCY: Negative reviews span 2013–2024, indicating this is not a recent problem. However, the most severe owner-related incidents cluster in 2018–2023.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW RISK: The Seaside Plumbing reviews (all 5-star, dated 2013–2024, with similar praise language about 'Mark' and 'George') may represent legitimate long-term customer loyalty, but the consistency and lack of specificity in some reviews warrants caution. However, these are distinct from Speedy reviews and appear credible given corroborating details.
• DATA QUALITY: This dataset appears to conflate multiple business entities. Seaside Plumbing and Speedy Plumbing should be analyzed separately for accuracy.

This WW Score of 62.3 is reliable but masks a critical bifurcation: if Seaside Plumbing and Speedy Plumbing are separate entities, Seaside scores ~88 (HIGH confidence) while Speedy scores ~45 (HIGH confidence, but heavily negative). If they are the same company, the score reflects genuine inconsistency in service quality and a serious owner conduct problem that significantly undermines trust. The HIGH overall confidence reflects substantial review volume (80 reviews) and consistent patterns, but the score should be interpreted with caution pending clarification of business entity separation. Customers should verify which location/entity they are contacting and strongly consider the documented owner behavior issues before engaging this company.

The majority of reviews praise Bluewater Plumbing for punctuality, friendliness, and clear communication, driving a solid professionalism score. However, one highly detailed and credible 1-star review describes serious failures: a multi-month delay on a commercial restaurant opening due to repeated no-shows, poor workmanship requiring repairs on every installed sink, and threatening payment behavior — all of which significantly drag down both project completion and professionalism scores. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because the negative review directly and explicitly describes abandoned timelines and defective work, which is a severe outcome. Pricing and experience scores are based on limited positive mentions and are treated conservatively. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with a generally positive track record for smaller residential jobs but a documented serious failure on a larger commercial project.

• One 1-star review describes extremely serious misconduct: a 3-month delay on a commercial restaurant opening, defective workmanship on all installed sinks, and alleged threats to post on social media if payment was not made immediately. This review is detailed, specific, and credible and carries significant weight.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service! Appreciate their timeliness and help.') with no specific details, which limits their evidentiary value and raises mild concern about authenticity.
• Most reviews are dated between 2019 and 2022, with only one review from 2023. Recency of data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.
• The single negative review is the only commercial-scale job described. Performance on large commercial projects may differ significantly from the residential work praised in other reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the positive reviews are numerous but skew older and several lack specific detail, while the single negative review is highly specific and describes serious project and conduct failures that cannot be dismissed.