Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilmington, North Carolina

Christian Plumbing exhibits highly inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While some reviews praise professionalism, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship (particularly from older reviews 2012-2014), recent reviews (2017-2024) reveal serious problems with project completion, including incomplete work, installation errors, failure to honor callbacks, and dishonest communication. Pricing complaints appear in multiple recent reviews citing overcharges and inflated quotes. The company demonstrates technical competence in some cases but critical failures in others, including improper installations that required customer corrections and unresolved issues abandoned after initial service.

• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2012-2014 are predominantly 5-star with glowing praise; reviews from 2017-2024 are predominantly 1-star with serious complaints. This suggests either significant business deterioration or a change in ownership/management.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple recent reviews (2017, 2019, 2022, 2024) explicitly mention failure to complete work properly, abandoned callbacks, and installations that did not meet specifications.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Older reviews cite fair/reasonable pricing; recent reviews cite overcharges ($200 extra on sink install, $650 vs $150 for same sewer line work), suggesting pricing practices have changed or become predatory.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recent reviews document broken promises, missed appointments, deferred calls, and failure to follow up on unresolved issues.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CHANGE: The stark contrast between pre-2015 and post-2017 reviews suggests potential ownership change, staff turnover, or business model shift. Owner 'Roger' is praised in 2012-2014 reviews but absent from recent complaints.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 21 reviews with adequate mention counts, the extreme temporal polarization (older reviews uniformly positive, recent reviews uniformly negative) suggests the company's current performance may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. Recent reviews (past 3 years) should be weighted more heavily than historical data, which would lower the score substantially. Consumers should prioritize the 2017-2024 reviews as more representative of current service quality.

This contractor exhibits a stark performance divide. Two emergency service reviews (2019–2020) praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical competence, suggesting strong capabilities under pressure. However, two scheduled project reviews (2017–2018) reveal critical failures: multiple no-shows, project abandonment, poor communication, and defective workmanship (water softener installation with leaks and non-functional equipment). The contractor's inability to honor commitments on standard projects, combined with unresponsiveness to callbacks, significantly undermines trust. Professionalism and project completion scores are heavily penalized by documented no-shows and lack of follow-through.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2017–2018 (5–7 years old); only two are from 2019–2020. Older negative reviews may reflect past issues, but pattern of no-shows and abandonment is serious.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: All reviews are either 5-star or 1-star with no middle ground. This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible selection bias in review pool.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: Positive reviews are emergency calls only; negative reviews are scheduled projects. Contractor may lack capacity or discipline for non-emergency work.
• UNRESOLVED DEFECTS: Water softener review indicates defective installation and non-responsiveness to vendor/customer contact. No evidence of remediation.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While the sample size is small (4 reviews), the pattern of emergency-only success versus project-failure is consistent and credible. The contractor's inability to complete scheduled work and honor commitments is a serious red flag that outweighs positive emergency-service reviews. Recommend requesting references for recent scheduled (non-emergency) projects before engaging.

Milam Plumbing shows a mixed but somewhat positive track record across a small review set. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers praising specific technicians by name for being polite, prompt, and professional — however, two reviews explicitly call the company unprofessional or difficult to work with, which meaningfully drags the score down. Project completion is a notable concern: one detailed review describes a shower pan being improperly installed twice over several weeks, leaving the customer without a working shower, which is a serious failure of follow-through. Pricing data is sparse, with only one review noting that a repair saved money by avoiding a full replacement, lending a cautiously positive but low-confidence pricing signal. Experience scores reflect a split picture — skilled work praised in some reviews, but the shower pan installation review describes a technician ignoring manufacturer instructions, which is a significant workmanship red flag.

• Small sample size of only 6 reviews severely limits reliability of all scores.
• Two reviews (1-star each) describe serious failures in professionalism and workmanship, creating meaningful negative signal that must not be dismissed.
• The shower pan review (Greg Tonkovich, 2022) describes a technician deliberately removing a manufacturer warning sticker and performing a faulty installation twice — this is a significant quality and integrity concern.
• Most positive reviews are relatively brief and name specific technicians without deep detail; while not conclusively fake, they lack the specificity that would raise confidence in the positive scores.
• Review dates span from 2021 to 2024. Only 2 reviews are within the past 12 months (2024), limiting recency confidence. The most detailed negative review is from 2022.
• No reviews mention pricing in detail beyond one indirect reference; the pricing score should be treated as very low confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning three years, includes two substantive negative reviews describing real failures, and should be treated as a preliminary and low-confidence signal — significantly more review data would be needed before trusting this score for a hiring decision.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a severe 2016 complaint about poor responsiveness and communication—the owner failed to return calls over multiple days despite claiming to be busy. However, three older reviews (2012–2014) praise punctuality, professionalism, and service quality. Project completion is supported by three reviews confirming work was finished and timely. Pricing appears fair based on one explicit mention. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects the tension between older positive reviews and a recent critical failure in responsiveness that undermines trust.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8–12 years old (2012–2014). The most recent review (2016) is a severe 1-star complaint about communication failure, suggesting potential service degradation over time.
• INSUFFICIENT RECENT DATA: Only one review from the past 8 years; cannot reliably assess current performance.
• ONE REVIEW WITH NO TEXT: The 2015 5-star review contains 'unknown' as text and provides no usable evidence.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 total reviews limits confidence in any dimension score.

This score should be treated with caution due to very limited recent data (only 1 usable review from 2016 onward), a small overall sample size, and a significant recency gap between older praise and a recent critical failure in communication. The contractor's current reliability cannot be confidently assessed.

Professionalism scores moderately because while a large number of reviews praise individual technicians as friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative, a significant and recurring minority describe rude office staff, dispatchers who hung up on customers, failure to notify customers of schedule changes, and at least one technician described as appearing impaired. Pricing is the most heavily penalized dimension: dozens of explicit complaints describe charges of $400–$1,800+ for jobs lasting under an hour, non-transparent fee structures, undisclosed dispatch fees, and quotes that ballooned after work began — with multiple reviewers stating they were charged more than quoted or charged for work that did not fix the problem. Project completion suffers from a meaningful pattern of abandoned or incomplete jobs, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, parts never ordered, jobs left mid-way, and in several cases customers having to hire a second company to finish what Best Plumbing started. Experience scores in the moderate range because many individual technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but a notable subset of negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, wrong parts, broken equipment left behind, and work that made problems worse — suggesting uneven technical quality across the workforce.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the long 'sewer backup on a Sunday' review appears twice on different dates; the 'Fast and prof Service' review appears twice; the 'Professional, Helpful, Communicative' Morgan Hoover review appears twice; the 'Best Plumbing Company is simply the BEST' Trent and Sheldon review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but inflate the raw review count.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-06 with no review text (rating only, all 5-star) is highly suspicious and suggests possible review padding. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• PLATFORM DISCREPANCY NOTED: One reviewer explicitly states the company has a 1.5/5 rating on Consumer Checkbook and a 3.0 on Yelp versus a much higher Google rating, and questions whether positive Google reviews are authentic. This is consistent with the observed pattern of generic, brief 5-star reviews alongside detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) include both strong positives and several serious negatives including pricing complaints, incomplete work, and threatening collection behavior, suggesting the issues are ongoing and not historical.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer alleges the owner called months after a negative review to offer $100 to remove it, which if accurate represents a serious ethical concern about review integrity.
• BILLING PRACTICE FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same pattern — undisclosed dispatch/diagnostic fees, no upfront estimates, charges presented only after work is done, and refusal to itemize invoices. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 8 distinct reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits for the same issue, or required a second company to finish — a significant project completion risk for prospective customers.
• THREATENING COLLECTIONS FLAG: At least two reviewers describe being threatened with police action or property liens when disputing bills, including in one case for work that did not fix the problem. This is a serious customer service and ethical flag.

This WW Score of 58.3 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should weight it cautiously given strong evidence of systematic pricing opacity, a suspicious cluster of blank 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate the overall star average on other platforms, and a recurring pattern of incomplete work and aggressive billing practices documented across multiple years and geographies.

Edgewater Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning from 2012 to 2024. While professionalism and experience scores are moderate-to-decent (72 and 78 respectively), pricing emerges as a major weakness (45), with multiple recent complaints about overcharging, unnecessary upsells, and inflated labor rates. Project completion is hampered by documented responsiveness failures and unfinished work. The company demonstrates capability when engaged (quality workmanship, problem-solving), but serious concerns about billing practices, communication delays, and owner conduct significantly undermine overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2012–2018 (6+ years old). Recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly negative (4 of 5 recent reviews are 1-star), suggesting deterioration in service quality or business practices.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, unnecessary charges, inflated helper fees ($75/hour on top of $115/hour base), and overestimation of work duration. This pattern is consistent across recent reviews.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Two separate reviews document failure to respond to calls/emails and non-follow-up on estimates, indicating systemic communication problems.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One detailed account of owner (Jeremiah Lederer) being 'extremely rude' and threatening legal action over a bill not yet due—serious professionalism red flag.
• SUSPICIOUS POSITIVE REVIEW: The 2023-09-09 review uses generic praise ('lifesaver,' 'goes above and beyond,' 'Miller Time moments') with no specific details about actual work performed. Language is unusually polished and lacks concrete examples, raising authenticity concerns.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: One 5-star review contains only 'unknown' as text, providing no usable information.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Stark contrast between older reviews (2012–2018) praising reliability and newer reviews (2023–2024) citing dishonesty and poor service suggests either significant business decline or inconsistent service delivery.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to recency bias in negative reviews, a clear downward trend in service quality over time, and documented pricing disputes that are recent and specific. The score reflects current performance risk rather than historical reputation; customers should prioritize the 2023–2024 reviews as more predictive of current experience.