Find Nearby Plumbers In Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Tank's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism, pricing fairness, and technical expertise. The company excels at communication, punctuality, and knowledgeable staff across multiple reviews. However, project completion shows some vulnerability with two significant negative reviews citing incomplete work, poor communication during jobs, and billing disputes. Recent reviews (2022-2024) are predominantly positive, but older negative reviews from 2020 and 2023 reveal systemic issues with job follow-through and management responsiveness that warrant caution.

• Two serious negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2023-03-22 and 2020-05-21) describe incomplete work, poor communication, and billing disputes. These are detailed, specific complaints that contradict the overwhelmingly positive pattern and suggest real operational issues.
• Review from 2023-03-22 contains personal attacks on ownership (allegations of alcoholism, rudeness) which reduces credibility of that specific review, but the core complaint about incomplete work and billing problems remains substantive.
• Review from 2020-05-21 explicitly states 2 of 3 requested tasks were not completed and the customer was billed anyway—a critical project completion failure.
• Recency bias noted: 18 of 27 reviews are from 2022 or later; only 2 negative reviews exist, both from 2020 or earlier. This could suggest improved operations or could indicate selection bias in recent reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews show varied specific details, different plumber names (John, Clayton, Tim, Kaleb, Jordon, CJ, JP), and realistic scenarios.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence overall, but with a significant caveat: the project completion dimension is pulled down by two credible reports of incomplete work and billing issues, suggesting operational inconsistency. Recent performance appears stronger, but the historical pattern indicates risk. Recommend requesting references and clarifying scope-of-work agreements in writing before hiring.

Freedom Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the strongest area (85.2), with extensive praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians like Rob, Noah, and Trent. Project completion scores well (81.8) with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction, though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. Pricing is competitive (79.5), with customers frequently citing fair and reasonable rates compared to competitors, though a few complaints about unexpected costs and supply runs exist. Experience is solid (84.3), with customers consistently praising technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. However, the company shows inconsistency in service quality and responsiveness, with several negative reviews citing missed appointments, poor communication, and unresponsive management.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple identical reviews appear in the dataset (e.g., the detailed broken pipe/update review appears twice; several 5-star reviews from 2024-06-09 are duplicated). This inflates mention counts and may artificially elevate scores. Adjusted scoring accounts for this duplication.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (praising specific technicians like Rob, Noah, Trent, Chris, Mike) and negative reviews citing no-shows, unresponsiveness, and poor follow-up. This suggests quality varies significantly by technician and location.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2024-06-09, 2016-11-10, 2016-08-02, 2013-06-20) cite failure to return calls, poor responsiveness, and lack of follow-up. This is a recurring weakness despite overall professionalism scores.
• THIRD-PARTY ANSWERING SERVICE PROBLEM: One detailed 2025-05-10 review explicitly identifies a third-party after-hours answering service as the source of scheduling failures and communication breakdowns, suggesting systemic operational issues.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Several reviews (2022-01-17, 2016-11-29/30, 2013-07-08) cite unexpected charges for supply runs, hourly rate surprises, and perceived overcharging. Some customers felt misled about total costs.
• TECHNICIAN QUALITY VARIANCE: Negative reviews specifically name technicians (Justin, Dennis, Keith) as sources of poor service, while positive reviews praise others (Rob, Noah, Trent, Chris). This indicates hiring/training inconsistency.
• OLDER REVIEWS SHOW MORE COMPLAINTS: Reviews from 2013-2016 contain more detailed complaints about responsiveness and follow-up. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible recent improvements or review selection bias.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: While not all reviews are identical, there is a cluster of highly generic 5-star reviews from 2024-06-09 with minimal detail (e.g., 'Best plumbing company ever!', 'Great service, very professional.', blank reviews). These lack specificity and may be artificially generated. However, the majority of reviews contain sufficient detail to be credible.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable at the HIGH confidence level due to the large sample size (240 reviews) and consistent mention counts across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant operational inconsistencies: the company excels with certain technicians and locations but struggles with communication, responsiveness, and follow-up in other areas. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on which technician is assigned and whether they use the third-party answering service. The score is most trustworthy for assessing technical competence and professionalism during the actual service visit, but less reliable for predicting scheduling reliability and post-service responsiveness.

Scott Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism (87.5) and technical experience (86.0), supported by extensive evidence across 89 and 68 mentions respectively. Project completion scores solidly at 84.0 with 72 mentions, indicating reliable job follow-through and timely service delivery. The primary weakness is pricing (72.0), with customers frequently noting high costs despite acknowledging quality work; however, this dimension has limited mention count (18) relative to others. The company shows consistent excellence in punctuality, communication, and workmanship, though pricing concerns and occasional service recovery issues prevent a higher overall score.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (18 mentions) explicitly cite high costs. Customers describe charges as 'very expensive,' '60% more than estimate,' and '$400+' for routine work. While quality is praised, value perception is notably lower than other dimensions.
• SERVICE RECOVERY PATTERN: Several negative reviews (2022, 2020, 2019) describe warranty disputes, misdiagnosis, and poor follow-up. One 2022 review details owner threatening sheriff involvement over warranty claim. A 2020 review reports repeated failures of same component within 5 days. These suggest occasional systemic issues with accountability.
• ESTIMATE ACCURACY: Multiple reviews note significant variance between initial quotes and final bills (60% overages, $600-1100 increases). One 2025 review documents initial estimate vs. actual cost discrepancy on multi-sink installation.
• RECENCY DISTRIBUTION: 45% of reviews are from past 12 months (June 2024-June 2025), showing strong recent activity. Older reviews (2014-2019) are generally positive but less detailed. Recent reviews maintain quality standards but include more pricing complaints.
• ISOLATED NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Three 1-star reviews (2022, 2019) describe serious issues: warranty disputes, misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary re-piping, and refusal of jobs. These are outliers but indicate occasional poor judgment or communication breakdowns.
• EMPTY REVIEW TEXTS: Four reviews (2025-06-05, 2025-06-02, 2025-04-10, 2025-04-10) contain no text but carry 5-star or 1-star ratings. The 1-star empty review and multiple 5-star empty reviews reduce confidence slightly in those specific data points, though overall pattern is clear.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Reviews frequently name-check specific technicians (Dustin, Travis, Brandon, Jay, Keith). While most are praised, one review criticizes 'Jake' for damaging shower door and poor follow-up. Suggests quality may depend on individual technician assignment.

This WW Score of 82.1 is highly reliable, supported by 127 reviews with strong consensus on professionalism and experience. However, the pricing dimension (72.0) is based on only 18 mentions and represents a genuine weakness that should not be overlooked; customers consistently report high costs despite quality work. The score reflects a company that executes well but charges premium rates, with occasional service recovery issues that suggest room for improvement in accountability and estimate accuracy.

Tri City Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance driven by exceptional professionalism and reliable project completion. Ramon and his team consistently receive praise for punctuality, responsiveness, friendly demeanor, and quality workmanship across a large sample of reviews. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers explicitly citing price gouging, inflated quotes, and aggressive pricing tactics that contradict the company's otherwise positive reputation. The company excels at communication, follow-through, and technical expertise, but the pricing concerns—particularly the detailed complaints about $1,100 quotes for $10 repairs and aggressive follow-up calls—significantly impact overall trustworthiness despite the high volume of satisfied customers.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple explicit complaints about price gouging (reviews from 2022-06-09, 2021-05-15) describe quotes of $1,100 for repairs costing $10-15 in parts. One customer reported Ramon called aggressively to defend the high quote, which damaged trust further.
• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: Review from 2023-03-30 reports improper water heater vent installation that created carbon monoxide hazard. Customer could not reach company for callback, and another plumber confirmed installation was unsafe. This is a serious liability concern.
• MISSED APPOINTMENT: Review from 2022-10-17 documents complete no-show for scheduled 5:00 PM appointment with no communication across 8+ hours.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text or only 1-2 words (dates 2022-06-09, 2021-06-09, 2020-06-09, 2015-02-11, 2014-12-18), suggesting possible review manipulation or placeholder entries.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2018-2022 (older than 12 months). Only ~15 reviews from 2024-2025. Recent reviews show more pricing complaints, suggesting potential deterioration in value proposition.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Identical review text appears twice (water heater at 8AM quote, professional install by 11AM) on dates 2021-06-09 and 2020-08-13, suggesting possible review duplication.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be interpreted with caution: while professionalism and project completion scores are highly reliable (based on 87 and 72 mentions respectively), the pricing dimension is significantly underdeveloped (only 18 mentions) and shows a stark divide between general satisfaction and specific pricing complaints. The safety issue and missed appointment represent serious red flags that are not fully captured in the numerical score. Customers should expect excellent service quality and responsiveness but should obtain multiple quotes and carefully review pricing before committing, as the company appears to have a pattern of aggressive pricing that contradicts its otherwise professional reputation.

Mason Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, communication, and courteous service across 16 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction, though one significant failure (2015 sewer line repair causing secondary damage) and one incomplete service call (2016 non-response) lower this dimension. Experience is well-evidenced through technical problem-solving and skilled workmanship across complex jobs. Pricing shows mixed feedback: several customers praised reasonable costs and fair estimates, but three reviews explicitly criticized high pricing, creating moderate confidence in this dimension. The overall score reflects a generally reliable contractor with occasional service lapses.

• Multiple 'unknown' review texts (6 reviews with no substantive content) reduce data quality but do not appear to be fake—likely system artifacts from older entries
• Significant recency gap: 24 of 33 reviews are from 2014 or earlier; only 3 reviews from 2023–2024. Recent data is limited and may not reflect current operations
• One highly negative review (2015-01-06, 1-star) describes serious quality failure: improper excavation causing pipe damage, secondary leak, and expensive rework. This is a legitimate complaint that materially impacts project completion and experience scores
• One non-response complaint (2016-10-10, 2-star: 'wouldnt return call') suggests occasional communication failures
• Possible ownership/quality change noted in 2015 negative review: 'senior repairmen/owner has retired and his son took over ownership.' This may explain quality variance and warrants caution about historical vs. current performance

This score should be treated with caution due to heavy reliance on reviews older than 8 years and limited recent data (only 3 reviews from 2023–2024). While the HIGH confidence dimensions are well-supported by mention counts, the contractor's current performance may differ from historical patterns, particularly given the reported ownership transition in 2015 and the serious quality failure documented that year. Recent customer feedback is needed to validate current reliability.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, friendliness, and communication across both the 535 Plumbing and Plumbing Works entities represented in this dataset. Pricing is generally rated favorably with many reviewers explicitly noting competitive or fair quotes, though a handful of negative reviews cite overcharging, hidden fees, and pricing significantly above competitors — pulling the pricing score down meaningfully. Project completion is strong overall, but several notable failures exist: one reviewer reported a shower valve repair that required three visits and was ultimately never fixed, causing them to hire another plumber; another noted a wrong water heater was ordered leaving a permanent cosmetic issue; and one reviewer paid $900 twice for drain cleanouts with a backup recurring four days after the second service. Experience scores well given the volume of reviews citing technical knowledge, problem-solving, and skilled workmanship, though the failed shower valve repair and misdiagnosis incidents prevent a higher score. Overall this is a well-reviewed operation with a strong track record, tempered by a consistent minority of negative experiences around pricing transparency and incomplete resolutions.

• MIXED ENTITY ALERT: This review set appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct businesses — '535 Plumbing' (Hawaii-based) and 'Plumbing Works' (Los Angeles/California-based). These are almost certainly separate companies. Scores reflect the blended dataset but should not be treated as a single contractor's profile. Scores for each entity individually may differ significantly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-04-12 are word-for-word identical ('Really great service, they showed up on time, and the price they quoted me was by far the best after looking around at a dozen other plumbers.') — likely a fake or accidental duplicate submission.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2023-02-04 and 2023-02-10 for Plumbing Works are word-for-word identical regarding 'Anthinio' and mobile homes — likely a duplicate submission, possibly fake.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant portion of reviews, particularly for Plumbing Works, are highly generic (e.g., 'Best plumbers in town,' 'highly recommend,' no specific job details) and several appear to be SEO-keyword-stuffed (repeated mentions of 'tankless water heater installation,' 'drain cleaning,' 'hydro jetting,' 'repipe'). This pattern is consistent with review padding.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial number of reviews date from 2013–2020, some as old as 2006. These older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) are concentrated on 535 Plumbing and are generally positive, but the older Plumbing Works reviews include several negative experiences that remain relevant to the overall score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING: At least 3 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees, or pricing far above competitors (1-star review citing $303 vs quoted $130; 2-star review citing $20,000 equivalent vs $4,200 competitor quote; 1-star review citing $360 for a misdiagnosis). This is a meaningful signal despite the high volume of positive pricing mentions.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACKS IGNORED: One reviewer reported a shower valve repair that was attempted three times and never resolved, with the company eventually stopping returning calls. One reviewer reported a plumbing inspection was never completed and no report or bill was ever delivered despite multiple follow-up attempts. These are serious project completion failures.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINT: One 3-star review (2025-04-10) states 'Disappointed that there are still no answers' regarding an unresolved outcome — no follow-up or resolution is evident in the review data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a single-contractor score is significantly undermined by the apparent mixing of two separate business entities (535 Plumbing and Plumbing Works), the presence of duplicate and potentially fake reviews, and a consistent minority of serious negative experiences involving pricing transparency, incomplete repairs, and ignored callbacks — consumers should treat this score as directional only and verify which specific entity they are engaging.