Find Nearby Plumbers In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Pat Chase has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise his responsiveness, fair pricing, and honest approach — he is frequently described as not upselling unnecessary work, which is a meaningful differentiator. Professionalism scores well overall but is dragged down by several credible negative reviews citing poor communication, no-shows, and one instance of leaving a customer without a working toilet for six days. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple negative reviews describe serious workmanship failures — including an incorrectly installed whole-house water filter, a main drain pipe left unconnected to sewage causing a sewer smell requiring jackhammer repair, wrong caulking that failed within months, and a dishwasher drained incorrectly — all of which required costly remediation by other plumbers. Experience scores moderately well given the volume of positive technical feedback, but the severity and specificity of the negative workmanship complaints prevent a high score. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with the vast majority of reviewers explicitly calling out fair or reasonable rates, though two reviewers described his pricing as expensive.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Mr. Chase has been a Godsend at my house twice in the past 15 months' appears verbatim twice (dated 2019-06-11 and 2019-05-11). One instance has been counted once only.
• 5 reviews contained no text at all (blank body, only a 5-star rating) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several negative reviews are highly specific and credible: one describes a main drain pipe left unconnected to sewage requiring jackhammer repair by a second plumber; another describes a whole-house water filter installed with missing critical parts causing ongoing problems four years later; a third describes wrong caulking material used on a tub. These are serious workmanship failures that meaningfully suppress the project completion and experience scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content span 2012–2025. The most recent negative reviews (2023, 2025) are within the past 12–24 months and have been weighted more heavily. Several positive reviews are from 2017 or earlier and carry reduced weight.
• One negative review (2019) cites Pat advertising 24-hour service but being unhelpful at 11:30pm — this is a responsiveness/professionalism concern that is partially corroborated by a separate 2015 review describing a no-show and poor communication about scheduling.
• One negative review (2013) describes rudeness, failure to follow up on estimates, and forgetting a scheduled appointment — a pattern of inconsistent reliability that appears across multiple time periods.

This WW Score is based on 65 reviews spanning over a decade with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of multiple specific, credible negative reviews describing serious workmanship failures and project abandonment means prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate-confidence indicator and carefully vet the scope of any complex installation work before hiring.

A-Comfort Service receives strong and consistent praise for technician professionalism, punctuality, and communication across the majority of recent reviews, with multiple named technicians (Kyle, Dan, Mike, Riggs) repeatedly highlighted for courteous and thorough service. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple detailed negative reviews cite lack of cost transparency, unexpected fees, flat-rate billing with no itemized breakdown, and prices that customers found excessive compared to competitors — dragging the pricing dimension down substantially. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as fully completed and followed through, though a notable exception involves a misquoted pipe system that required a callback fix and a condenser unit placed incorrectly requiring an additional $1,627 charge. Experience scores moderately well given strong technical praise in recent reviews, but is tempered by older reviews describing misdiagnosis, unnecessary repair recommendations, and work left incomplete or improperly done. The score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and friendly field staff but meaningful and documented systemic issues around pricing transparency and occasional quality control.

• 4 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews from the 2024–2025 period mention the same technician names (Kyle, Mike, Riggs) with nearly identical praise structures. While this may reflect genuine repeat-customer satisfaction, the pattern warrants mild caution regarding review authenticity for those specific technicians.
• Multiple reviews are older than 3 years (2009–2020). Negative reviews from this period (misdiagnosis, broken parts, billing disputes, COVID protocol failure) were weighted lower but not excluded, as they reveal potentially systemic issues that may persist.
• The single most detailed negative review (2024-10-12, 1-star) describes a $14,624 charge for a sub-1,000 sq ft home system and an improperly placed condenser unit requiring an additional $1,627 to relocate — this is a significant red flag for pricing transparency and installation quality control.
• A 2018 review describes a technician recommending $1,207 in warranty repairs that two independent companies said were unnecessary and not under warranty, with the actual repair costing ~$200. This suggests a historical pattern of upselling that should be noted.
• A 2016 review describes a diagnostic fee charged with no actual diagnosis performed, and no follow-up from management after multiple contact attempts — flagging both workmanship and customer service concerns.
• Recency note: The majority of 5-star reviews are from 2024–2025 and reflect a more positive recent trend. However, pricing complaints also appear in this recent window (2024), indicating the pricing issue has not been fully resolved.

This WW Score is based on 54 reviews with usable content spanning 2009–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on the pricing dimension specifically, where documented complaints are detailed, credible, and span multiple years.

Dave and A Pittsburgh Plumber receive consistently strong praise for fair pricing, technical skill, and friendly demeanor, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out reasonable rates, honest billing, and quality workmanship across a range of plumbing tasks. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by two separate reviews describing a complete failure to show up or return calls — one reviewer called six times with no response, and another waited three hours past an appointment with no contact. Project completion is similarly mixed: while most jobs described were finished satisfactorily, the no-show incidents represent a total failure to even begin work, and one faucet job required two visits due to missing parts. The business has not received a review since late 2022, meaning all reviews are more than 12 months old and the current state of operations is unknown.

• TWO SERIOUS NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: Two separate reviewers (2014, 2015) report being completely ignored — one called six times with no callback, another waited three hours past a scheduled appointment with no answer or return call. These are not minor complaints and materially reduce professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is dated December 2022, meaning all 14 reviews are over 12 months old as of 2024. No recent data exists to confirm whether current service quality matches historical reviews. Scores should be treated with caution.
• REVIEW SPAN IS VERY WIDE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2022 — a 10-year window. Earlier reviews (2012–2015) may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or reliability.
• SOME GENERIC REVIEWS WITH LOW DETAIL: Several reviews ('True professional.', 'It was very good. He was there right away.', 'Their prices are very reasonable and they are customer friendly.') contain minimal specifics. While not conclusively fake, they contribute limited scoring evidence and were weighted conservatively.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Despite some generic entries, the overall review set contains enough varied, specific, and negative reviews to suggest an authentic review pool. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural confidence due to the volume of reviews and mention counts across all dimensions, but should be treated with real-world caution given two documented no-show failures and the complete absence of reviews from the past 12 months.

Albert and Plumber Plus receive consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly praised attribute — punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and communication are mentioned across nearly every review. Pricing is also a clear strength, with multiple reviewers independently noting fair or reasonable charges and one reviewer explicitly contrasting Albert's pricing favorably against competitor quotes. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished same-day or next-day and no mention of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is positively noted through references to skill, knowledge, and effective problem-solving, though with slightly fewer specific technical details. The overall picture is of a reliable, fairly priced, and competent solo or small plumbing operation.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details (clog 40 feet down the line, sump pump installation, water heater replacement) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• 4 of the 6 reviews are older than 12 months, with 5 of 6 being older than 3 years. Only 1 review (November 2023) falls within the past 12 months. The score should be interpreted with awareness that recent performance data is very limited.
• Small review sample (n=6) limits statistical reliability. Confidence factors are applied in the WW Score formula to account for this, but the score should be treated as directionally indicative rather than definitive.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity of reviewer comments, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size of 6 reviews and the fact that only 1 review is from the past 12 months.

Buffalini Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the strongest signal, with all five reviews referencing responsiveness, friendliness, and reliability. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished correctly and on the first visit. Experience is affirmed by specific mentions of skilled diagnostics, difficult repairs, and a wide range of completed work types. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews as reasonable and competitive, but the limited sample size keeps confidence low for that dimension.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews contain specific details and varied language that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• One review is dated 2016 — nearly 9 years old — and should be weighted significantly less than the more recent reviews. The most recent cluster (2022–2023) is more reliable.
• Sample size of only 5 reviews is small; the WW Score should be treated as directionally useful but not statistically robust.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability overall — the reviews are specific and credible, but the very small sample size (5 reviews) and one significantly outdated review (2016) limit the confidence with which this score can be generalized.

Buerkle Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across professionalism and experience, with multiple reviewers explicitly highlighting Al Buerkle's communication, availability, friendliness, and deep technical knowledge across a range of plumbing and heating scenarios. Project completion scores well based on four reviews describing jobs that were seen through to resolution, including a complex water service line relocation. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews — one citing 'fair price' and one describing Al as 'fair and honest' — which limits confidence in that dimension but suggests no red flags. The overall picture is of a reliable, skilled, and personable operation, though the small review pool and age of several reviews temper full confidence.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is small and limits statistical reliability of all scores.
• Three of the five reviews are dated 2021 or earlier, with one review from 2013. Only one review falls within the past 12 months (June 2023). Recency weighting significantly reduces confidence in current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive sentiment. While the reviews contain specific details and varied scenarios that reduce fake review suspicion, the absence of any critical feedback across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• The 2021-08-07 review appears truncated ('They receive full support from Management to achi') and may be incomplete, reducing its usable data value.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and largely dated review set — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.