Find Nearby Plumbers In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Aquatec receives generally positive feedback on professionalism and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers praising the team's speed, friendliness, and communication. Pricing is a notable strength, with at least two reviewers explicitly calling out reasonable or half-price rates compared to competitors. However, project completion is significantly dragged down by one 1-star review explicitly stating the company does not stand behind its work or fix its mistakes, which is a serious flag for a plumbing contractor. The experience dimension shows some positive signals — fast diagnosis, gas line work, drain repair — but the negative review introduces doubt about workmanship quality. Overall, the score reflects a mixed but cautiously positive picture tempered by a credible complaint about follow-through.

• One review (1-star, June 2016) explicitly states the company does not honor its guarantee and will not fix its own mistakes — this is a direct project completion and reliability concern that cannot be dismissed.
• Four of the six reviews are from 2016–2018, making them over 5 years old. Only one review is from the past 3 years (2021). Recency of data is poor and the score should be treated with caution.
• The positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise ('professional,' 'reasonable,' 'fast') with limited specific detail about the scope or outcome of work, which slightly reduces confidence in their depth.
• Total review count is very low (6 reviews). The WW Score is based on limited data and should not be considered highly reliable.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews, the majority of which are over 5 years old, and includes one serious complaint about failure to honor work guarantees — treat this score as a preliminary signal only and seek more current references before hiring.

R.D. Smith Plumbing receives generally positive feedback on technical skill and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers praising knowledgeable work and same-day availability. However, a significant negative review details a serious professionalism failure — a technician left an elderly customer's work area covered in feces and waste, refused to clean up, and showed a dismissive attitude, which materially drags down both the professionalism and project completion scores. Project completion is mixed: one review notes the clog was only partially fixed, while others praise timely and complete work. No reviews mention pricing at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. The small review pool of only 4 reviews — one of which is from 2020 and one from 2021 — limits the reliability of these scores considerably.

• Very small review pool (only 4 reviews total) — scores should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence.
• Two of the four reviews are more than 3 years old (2020 and 2021), reducing their relevance to current service quality.
• One serious negative incident involving unsanitary work conditions left for an elderly customer and a dismissive attitude from the technician — this is a significant professionalism red flag that is not offset by generic praise in other reviews.
• Partial job completion noted in the 2021 negative review — the clog was only partially resolved, which affects the project completion score.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be evaluated.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning multiple years and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

Cunningham Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture. Positive reviews praise punctuality, responsiveness, clear communication, and solid workmanship across multiple job types including water heaters, toilets, and faucets. However, two recent 2024 reviews raise serious red flags: a no-show appointment, failure to provide legally required 24-hour notice before entry, rude behavior toward customers, and hanging up on a client attempting to voice concerns. These negative incidents are recent and specific, which significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing and experience scores are more favorable but are partially based on older reviews dating back to 2012–2015, which limits their current reliability.

• TWO SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEWS (June 2024): Both describe unprofessional conduct including a no-show, failure to provide 24-hour notice before entry, rudeness, and hanging up on a customer. These are specific, credible, and recent — they carry significant weight.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of the five positive reviews are from 2012, 2013, and 2015 — over 9 years old. These are given reduced weight as they may not reflect current service quality.
• ONLY 2 REVIEWS FROM THE PAST 12 MONTHS (mid-2023 to mid-2024): One is positive (May 2023), two are strongly negative (June 2024). The most recent trend is negative.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 total reviews limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: while the sample covers multiple dimensions, the small total review count, the heavy age of positive reviews, and two credible and specific recent negative reviews mean the score may not reliably represent current service quality.

Arnold & Sons presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised their professionalism, courtesy, punctuality, and clear communication — with two reviews specifically naming technicians Doug and Greg as respectful and patient. However, two serious negative reviews significantly drag down every dimension: one describes a botched hot water heater installation, failed callback, and a technician hanging up on an elderly customer, while another describes an unfinished job, a non-functional hydrant after two weeks of follow-up calls, and a $1,000 overcharge beyond the estimate. These are not minor complaints — they represent failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, and project completion simultaneously. The overall score reflects genuine uncertainty: the positive reviews are warm but lack granular detail, and the negative reviews describe serious, specific failures that cannot be dismissed.

• Two reviews describe serious service failures: one involving an abandoned/incomplete job and a $1,000 overcharge beyond estimate, and another involving a botched repair and a technician hanging up on an 80-year-old customer. These are significant red flags.
• The positive reviews (particularly the 2018 and 2019 entries) use somewhat generic praise language ('courtesy and respect', 'done well, done right') with limited job-specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.
• Most reviews are from 2018–2020, with the most recent being from March 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning current service quality cannot be assessed. The oldest negative review dates to 2013.
• The small total review count (6 reviews) means individual negative reviews carry disproportionate weight. Scores should be treated with caution.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the low volume and date range limit reliability.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 6 reviews spanning 7+ years, includes two serious and specific negative experiences, and no reviews exist from the past 12 months to reflect current performance.

Professionalism is the only dimension with enough mentions to carry meaningful weight, and it tells a mixed story. Two reviewers praised responsiveness and professional conduct — one noting a one-hour Saturday callback and describing the business as 'the most professional plumber' they had encountered. However, a third reviewer reported a serious professionalism failure: a 3 AM call to a business advertised as 24-hour service resulted in a rude response and being hung up on. This negative incident significantly drags the professionalism score down. Experience received limited positive signals from two reviews but lacked any specific detail about workmanship quality. Pricing and project completion were entirely unmentioned across all reviews, leaving two of the four scoring dimensions with no usable data.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with very low confidence.
• All reviews are older than 3 years (most recent: April 2021, oldest: February 2019) — no data from the past 12 months. Current service quality is unknown.
• The two positive reviews are vague and lack specific detail about the work performed, which limits their evidentiary value.
• A direct contradiction exists between the advertised 24-hour service and the contractor's own statement that he does not take 3 AM calls — this is a material misrepresentation flag.
• Pricing and Project Completion dimensions returned null due to zero mentions — the WW Score is calculated on only 2 of 4 dimensions, significantly reducing its reliability.

This WW Score should be considered highly unreliable — it is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 3 years old, covering just 2 of 4 scoring dimensions, with a significant unresolved professionalism complaint that directly contradicts the contractor's advertised service offering.

Calfo Home Services presents a deeply polarized review profile. Recent 2025 reviews are overwhelmingly positive, praising individual technicians like Ryan, Kevin, Justin, Omar, and Mitchul for professionalism, punctuality, and thoroughness — driving the professionalism score upward. However, a substantial body of negative reviews spanning 2016–2025 describes serious and recurring concerns: extreme price gouging (quotes 2–10x market rate), hidden restocking fees, incomplete or abandoned work, dangerous installation errors (gas leaks, unsecured flue pipes, sabotaged equipment), and an owner who is repeatedly described as unresponsive and dismissive. Project completion suffers significantly due to multiple accounts of unfinished jobs, incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary repairs, and failure to follow through on callbacks or refunds. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with numerous detailed accounts of charges far exceeding market rates and deceptive contract practices.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW INFLATION: There is a sharp and suspicious spike in 5-star reviews in April and June 2025, many with minimal detail (e.g., blank text with 5 stars, or single-sentence generic praise). One negative reviewer explicitly alleges the owner solicits positive reviews in exchange for free inspections and uses family/friends to flood Google with 5-star reviews to suppress negative ones. This pattern is consistent with review manipulation.
• MULTIPLE BLANK REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENTS REPORTED: Multiple reviewers describe dangerous outcomes including gas leaks caused by improper installation, carbon monoxide venting into a home due to an unsecured flue pipe, and a technician allegedly sabotaging an AC unit. These are severe workmanship failures.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: At least 8 independent reviewers describe quotes or charges that were 2x to 10x the market rate for the same job, confirmed by competing contractors. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• DECEPTIVE CONTRACT PRACTICES: Multiple reviewers describe hidden or unclear restocking fees (up to 35% of total job cost), charges applied against the full contract price rather than the deposit as stated, and difficulty obtaining refunds. One reviewer cites Pennsylvania consumer protection law violations.
• OWNER RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Across multiple years and multiple reviewers, the owner Tim Calfo is described as unavailable, unresponsive to callbacks, and unwilling to take accountability for errors — including in cases involving safety hazards.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of 5-star reviews are from 2025 and cluster heavily in April–June 2025, while the most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2016–2025. The positive recent reviews may reflect a managed reputation campaign rather than a genuine improvement in service quality.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviewers describe jobs left unfinished, holes left in walls, grass not replanted after excavation, and follow-up visits never completed despite promises.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of review manipulation, a stark divergence between recent 5-star reviews and a sustained pattern of serious negative experiences, and multiple corroborated reports of safety failures, price gouging, and deceptive business practices.