Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, South Carolina

Superior Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism and project completion. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and responsiveness, with numerous reviews praising on-time arrivals and proactive text updates. Technical competence is consistently noted across complex jobs including water heater replacements, main line work, and diagnostics. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with several customers reporting unexpectedly high charges, lack of upfront quotes, and diagnostic fees perceived as excessive. The company maintains solid execution on job completion despite occasional follow-up issues.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple negative reviews (2023-2024) cite high costs without prior quotes, excessive diagnostic fees ($400-$800), and price gouging. One 1-star review from 2024-01-18 explicitly states competitor charged $200 vs Superior's $800 quote for nearly-completed work. This pattern suggests inconsistent pricing practices.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Two separate 1-star reviews document failure to follow up on promised callbacks and estimate delivery. One customer called three times over three weeks for a water heater estimate with no response. Another was given runaround regarding a filter leak caused by technician.
• RECENT NEGATIVE TREND: Negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024 period, suggesting potential service degradation or quality control issues in recent years.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Approximately 35 reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Excellent work', 'Good', 'Great service') with identical 5-star ratings and no specifics. While not definitively fake, this high volume of generic praise warrants caution in confidence assessment.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 5 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings, reducing data quality.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between detailed positive reviews praising specific technicians (JJ, Dwayne, Brian, Jamie) and negative reviews suggesting systemic issues with estimates, follow-up, and pricing transparency.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and technical execution supported by substantial evidence, the pricing dimension is significantly undermined by credible complaints of non-transparent quoting and high costs. The recent clustering of negative reviews (2023-2024) and documented follow-up failures suggest potential service inconsistency. The score reflects strong historical performance but may overstate current reliability given recent quality concerns.

S&S Plumbing (Frank and Jeremy) demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, excellent communication, and courteous service across 28 mentions. Technical expertise is solid with 15 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Pricing is fair and transparent across 12 mentions, with customers noting reasonable rates and honest estimates. However, project completion shows vulnerability: 3 critical negative reviews document serious follow-through failures including unresolved callbacks, delayed service (month-long waits), and incomplete repairs, significantly lowering this dimension's score despite many positive completion mentions. The company's reliability is undermined by these documented service failures.

• CRITICAL: Three 1-star reviews (Sept 2024, Dec 2023, Jan 2024) document severe project completion failures: unresponsive to callbacks, month-long delays, and incomplete repairs not followed up. These are specific, detailed complaints with dates and context—not generic criticism.
• INCONSISTENCY: One 1-star review (Jan 2024) states 'very pleased' and 'good job' but rates 1.0—likely data entry error or rating system misuse, but content is positive.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of reviews (24 of 36) are from June 2023 or earlier. Only 4 reviews from 2024 (1 positive Jan, 1 negative Sept, 2 positive Aug). Recent negative review from Sept 2024 suggests ongoing issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from June 10, 2023 (8 reviews) and June 7, 2023 (1 review) share similar structure and generic praise language ('professional,' 'on time,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. This clustering warrants caution but is not conclusive.
• BUSINESS STRUCTURE AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference 'Frank,' 'Jeremy,' 'FS Plumbing,' 'F&S,' and 'S&S Plumbing Systems' interchangeably, suggesting family operation or name variations. This complicates accountability assessment.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 28 and 15 mentions respectively, the project completion dimension is severely compromised by three detailed, recent negative reviews documenting unresolved callbacks and incomplete work—a critical failure for a plumbing contractor. The clustering of positive reviews from mid-2023 and the presence of potential fake review patterns further reduce confidence. The 82.1 score masks a company with inconsistent follow-through that may not honor callbacks or complete work reliably.

Johnson Brothers Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, courteous communication, and respectful demeanor across 68 reviews. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 51 reviews, with technicians frequently commended for knowledge and thoroughness. Project completion shows solid performance (42 mentions) though some older reviews flag scheduling inconsistencies and incomplete follow-up. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension (18 mentions, 72.0 score), with recurring complaints about service call fees, unexpected charges, and estimates that differ from final bills, though many recent reviews praise fair pricing. The company's family-owned, values-driven approach is a consistent strength.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 34 reviews (32.7% of total) are either completely blank or contain only 'unknown' as text, all rated 5.0 stars. This is highly unusual and suggests potential fake/placeholder reviews inflating the rating.
• RECENCY BIAS: 47 reviews (45.2%) are dated June 2025 (within past 30 days), creating a dramatic spike in recent 5-star ratings. This concentration is atypical and warrants caution.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2023, 2022, 2016, 2014) explicitly criticize $59-$80 service call fees and unexpected charges, yet recent reviews (2025) praise 'fair pricing' and 'upfront pricing.' This suggests either policy changes or selective recent reviews.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTERING: Negative reviews (1-3 stars) are concentrated in 2011-2023 period, while 2025 shows 100% 5-star ratings. This temporal separation is suspicious.
• INCOMPLETE FOLLOW-UP: Review from 2023-04-07 documents unresolved issue requiring $150 callback charge after $300+ initial service, suggesting potential quality control issues not reflected in recent reviews.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: 2022-12-08 review documents 10-hour no-show with no call, contradicting recent professionalism claims.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION: Due to suspicious review patterns and temporal clustering, overall confidence is reduced from HIGH to MODERATE-HIGH despite strong mention counts.

While mention counts support HIGH confidence in individual dimensions, the suspicious concentration of blank/placeholder reviews (32.7%), dramatic spike in recent 5-star ratings (45.2% from June 2025 alone), and temporal clustering of negative reviews in older periods suggest the WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with caution; the true score may be lower than calculated, and recent reviews may not reflect consistent historical performance.

All three reviews are highly positive and explicitly praise professionalism (punctuality, communication, patience, respectful treatment), project completion (jobs finished, responsive follow-through), and experience (technical knowledge, problem-solving with complications). Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews as fair and reasonable. However, the sample size is small (n=3), and all reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language, limiting confidence in the overall score. The most recent review is from September 2024, while two are from mid-2023.

• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more reviews before making major business decisions
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no negative feedback or critical details present to validate claims
• Two of three reviews are older than 12 months (August 2023, July 2023); only one recent review from September 2024
• Repetitive praise patterns across reviews (e.g., 'great,' 'professional,' 'impressed,' 'highly recommend') without specific technical details in some cases may suggest selection bias rather than fake reviews

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and absence of any critical or negative feedback; the score reflects strong performance on available data but lacks the volume needed for high confidence. Recommend collecting at least 5-10 additional reviews to establish a more reliable baseline.

Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Long Beach earns strong marks for professionalism and project completion, with the large majority of reviewers praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians — particularly named techs like Brian, Christian, Andy, Gerardo, and Tom Myers. Project completion scores are high, with many reviews confirming jobs finished same-day or next-day, clean worksite practices, and follow-through on callbacks and warranties. Experience scores are solid, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics, thorough inspections, and skilled workmanship across complex jobs like re-pipes, main line replacements, and gas leak repairs. However, pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise affordability and fair quotes, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — cite opaque invoicing, verbal quotes not honored in writing, unexpected charges, and rates described as excessive. This pricing inconsistency is the primary drag on the overall WW Score.

• 51 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• A significant number of reviews (approximately 30+) are generic one-liners such as 'Great service!', 'Very pleased', 'Excellent', or 'Will use again' with no specific detail. These were counted only where they could be attributed to a dimension with reasonable confidence (e.g., general satisfaction implying completion), but were treated conservatively.
• Pricing dimension has a notable split: roughly 20+ reviews praise affordability and fair pricing, while 12+ reviews explicitly describe overcharging, hidden fees, deceptive invoicing, or rates far above market. This internal conflict suppresses the pricing score significantly.
• One review (2024-03-08) alleges a technician took advantage of a senior with dementia, upselling an unnecessary toilet replacement and a non-refundable warranty plan for over $800. This is a serious ethical flag.
• One review (2022-11-14) alleges the company accepted a warranty job without being enrolled with the warranty provider, wasting the customer's time and charging a show-up fee.
• One review (2021-02-21) alleges damage to an irrigation system, demanding payment before inspection, and only partially fixing a self-created leak.
• One review (2019-12-07) alleges invoice manipulation after learning the job was warranty-covered, incorrect pipe sizing billed, and failure to honor a 6-year warranty that was quietly changed to 3 years.
• One review (2016-12-22) alleges an unlicensed apprentice was sent unsupervised, which the reviewer states is illegal in Washington state. This review appears to be for a different Mr. Rooter franchise location (Tri-Cities/Pasco, WA) and may not reflect the Long Beach location.
• Several negative reviews appear to reference different Mr. Rooter franchise locations (e.g., Anderson SC, Tri-Cities WA, Pasco WA, Richland WA). These were included in aggregate scoring but noted as potentially belonging to different franchises, which may inflate the negative signal for the Long Beach location.
• Review recency is strong: the majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2023–2025, lending HIGH confidence to current performance. Older negative reviews (2013–2018) may reflect different ownership, staffing, or franchise locations.
• No clear fake review pattern detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, and sentiment. The presence of multiple 1-star reviews with detailed complaints further supports authenticity of the review pool.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and predominantly recent review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing due to a meaningful minority of credible complaints about opaque billing and overcharging, and some negative reviews may originate from different Mr. Rooter franchise locations rather than the Long Beach operation specifically.

Staten Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism and project completion are particularly well-documented, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, thoroughness, and follow-through on complex jobs. Pricing is perceived as fair and transparent, though mentioned less frequently. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident from detailed descriptions of problem-solving and quality outcomes. The WW Score of 88.2 reflects reliable, professional service delivery.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — this uniformity warrants caution, though reviews contain specific details and vary in language/context enough to suggest authenticity rather than fabrication.
• Review dates span 2015–2022, with 4 of 6 reviews older than 3 years (2017 or earlier). Only 2 reviews from 2018 onward. Recency is limited; current performance cannot be fully assessed.
• Sample size is small (n=6). Confidence in overall score is moderate due to limited volume, despite high confidence in individual dimensions.

This score should be treated as moderately reliable. While individual dimension scores are well-supported by explicit evidence, the small sample size and age of most reviews limit the ability to assess current performance or detect potential issues that may have emerged in recent years.