Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, South Carolina

Gateway Supply demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable staff, friendly service, and helpful customer interactions. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion and pricing reliability. Two critical negative reviews document serious failures: one customer waited over a year for a refund on incorrectly ordered fixtures and received damaged merchandise, while another was given false inventory information. These completion and follow-through failures substantially lower the overall score despite the positive professionalism ratings. The business shows strong product knowledge but inconsistent execution on customer commitments.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3-8 years old (2016-2021), while the two most recent reviews with substantive detail (2023 and 2019) show mixed results. The 2019 review documents a serious unresolved refund issue lasting over one year.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Two reviews explicitly document failures in order fulfillment and follow-through—one involving a year-long unresolved refund and damaged merchandise, another involving false inventory assurance.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Four reviews (2021-2023) use nearly identical phrasing ('knowledgeable staff,' 'professional,' 'great customer service') with generic praise and no specific details about actual transactions or problems solved. These lack the specificity of the negative reviews.
• BUSINESS MODEL MISMATCH: Reviews describe this as a supply/fixture retailer, not a contractor/plumber service provider. Scoring is based on retail customer service rather than project-based work.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data, a significant unresolved customer complaint from 2019, and potential review authenticity concerns. The business demonstrates strong staff knowledge but has documented failures in order accuracy, inventory management, and refund processing that directly impact trustworthiness.

All five reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting responsiveness, punctuality, politeness, and willingness to go above and beyond — including after-hours availability and staying on-site until a job was fully resolved. Project completion scores are strong, with reviewers consistently noting that work was finished thoroughly, cleanly, and without abandonment. Experience is supported by four reviews referencing quality workmanship, problem-solving, and proactive identification of additional issues. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews, both noting reasonable or fair estimates, but the limited data warrants a conservative score. Overall confidence is tempered by the small review pool and the age of most reviews, with four of five being more than four years old.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about consistent contractor performance.
• Four of five reviews are older than 4 years (2014–2021), with none from the past 12 months. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.
• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• Two reviews reference different company names — 'Optima Plumbing, LLC' and 'AAA Upstate Plumbing' — suggesting these reviews may have been aggregated from multiple contractors or there is a business name discrepancy that should be verified before trusting this as a unified contractor profile.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only — the small review count, lack of recent reviews, and possible multi-contractor data mixing significantly limit the reliability of this score as a current performance benchmark.

Only 2 of 4 reviews contained usable content, with the remaining 2 marked as 'unknown' and providing no actionable data. The most detailed review (2017) explicitly praised punctuality, efficiency, and professionalism, supporting a modest professionalism score. One review briefly mentioned honesty and fairness, lending limited support to pricing and experience dimensions. All scored dimensions rest on very thin evidence — 1 to 2 mentions each — making every score conservative by design. The overall WW Score should be treated as a rough directional indicator only, not a reliable assessment.

• 2 out of 4 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text — these are unusable and may represent placeholder or incomplete submissions.
• All reviews carry 5-star ratings, but the two usable reviews are sparse in detail, limiting the ability to validate quality across multiple dimensions.
• All usable reviews are dated between 2013 and 2017 — none are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2025 evaluation date), meaning this data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• Sample size is critically small (only 2 reviews with usable data). Scores are highly sensitive to individual reviewer bias and cannot be considered statistically reliable.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 2 usable reviews, all data being 7–12 years old, and 2 reviews containing no content whatsoever — treat this score as insufficient for confident contractor evaluation.

All three reviews speak positively about responsiveness, friendliness, and communication, driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is also well-supported, with two reviews explicitly describing jobs being finished successfully and one praising after-hours availability and follow-through. Pricing signals are mixed — one reviewer noted an unexpectedly inexpensive repair, while another paid $1,000 and framed it as acceptable given the severity, yielding a moderate but not exceptional pricing score. Experience is supported by two reviews describing competent diagnosis and repair, though the sample is too small to score with high confidence. Overall, the scores are credible but must be treated cautiously given only three reviews, two of which are over three years old.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as preliminary only.
• All three reviews are dated between 2016 and 2020 — none fall within the past 12 months. Recency is a significant concern; current service quality may differ.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is specific and detailed enough to reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings with a very small sample warrants caution.
• One review (2016) is over 7 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring due to age.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 3 years, and should be considered a low-reliability preliminary indicator — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as representative of current service quality.

Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and follow-up calls from the owner. Pricing received positive mentions including no after-hours surcharge and flexible payment options, though one reviewer noted a higher-than-expected bill. Project completion is dragged down significantly by one review describing incomplete work, an incorrectly installed outlet, and a dishwasher flood caused by untightened hoses — a serious workmanship failure. The owner's ethical response (refund and apology) partially mitigates this, but the underlying execution failure cannot be ignored. Experience scores are mixed: most reviewers describe competent, efficient work, but the 2011 incident reveals a meaningful quality-control gap at the crew level.

• All reviews are significantly outdated — the most recent review is from 2016, and the majority are from 2006–2013. These scores reflect historical performance only and should not be treated as representative of current service quality.
• One review (2011) documents a serious project failure: incomplete work, an improperly installed outlet, and untightened dishwasher hoses that caused flooding. This is a material negative data point that meaningfully lowers the project completion and experience scores.
• One review ('It was fine') provides no usable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring. It contributes only to total review count.
• Several older positive reviews use somewhat generic praise with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those scores. However, enough concrete details exist across reviews to avoid a fake review flag.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small number of reviews, the age of all available data (none within the past 8+ years), and one documented incident of poor workmanship — consumers should seek current references before hiring.

Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension across all five reviews, with four reviews describing respectful, communicative, and punctual crews — however, one detailed 1-star review describes a contractor named Mike who exhibited a nasty attitude, refused to honor an original quote, and demanded more money at the last minute, which meaningfully drags the professionalism score down. Pricing receives the lowest score due to that same negative review, which describes a bait-and-switch dynamic where a cash deal was altered and no payment plan flexibility was offered — no other review explicitly addresses pricing, so this single negative account carries outsized weight. Project completion scores moderately well, with multiple reviews describing completed bathroom, kitchen, bedroom, and roofing projects, though no review explicitly confirms on-time delivery except one. Experience scores reasonably well based on specific mentions of quality workmanship, trade skill across multiple disciplines, and precision trim work, though the sample is small.

• Only 5 reviews total — this is a very small sample and the WW Score should be treated with significant caution.
• Three of the five positive reviews are from 2019 or earlier, with the most recent positive review from March 2023. The 2010 roofing review is over 14 years old and carries minimal relevance to current performance.
• The negative review (2022) references a specific individual named 'Mike' — it is unclear whether this person is still associated with the business, which limits its ongoing relevance but cannot be dismissed.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific project details, varied language, and include a substantive negative review, which increases authenticity confidence.
• The positive reviews are heavily clustered around general praise with limited specificity on pricing or timeline adherence, which limits scoring precision for those dimensions.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 14 years, with most positive reviews being 2–14 years old, making it a LOW-reliability signal for current contractor performance — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.