Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, South Carolina

Crown Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and technical experience, with hundreds of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and skilled problem-solving across a wide range of plumbing jobs. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished as promised, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe no-shows, rescheduling failures, incomplete work, and jobs that required multiple return visits to resolve. The most significant drag on the overall score is pricing: a substantial and consistent pattern of complaints across many independent reviewers describes charges that are 2x to 4x competitor quotes, surprise fees added after arrival, and a $145 diagnostic fee that was not always disclosed upfront. While many satisfied customers acknowledge the premium pricing as acceptable given quality, the volume and specificity of pricing complaints is too large to discount and materially lowers the Price Friendly dimension. The WW Score of 74.2 reflects a company with genuine strengths in craft and customer interaction, offset by a persistent and well-documented pricing concern.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least three reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Tyler showed up within 15 minutes' review appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the 'Easy scheduling. Prompt service' review appears on both dates; the large PEX-A repipe review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the Sunday evening shower cartridge emergency review appears verbatim on both 2022-06-07 and 2021-09-13). This pattern suggests possible review manipulation or platform cross-posting errors. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE NUMEROUS AND SPECIFIC: At least 25-30 independent reviews explicitly cite pricing as excessive, with multiple reviewers providing competitor comparisons showing Crown at 2x-4x market rate. This is not a fringe concern — it is a consistent, well-documented pattern across years and locations.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) describe Crown failing to show up for scheduled appointments, not calling to reschedule, or arriving at the wrong time with no advance notice. This is a recurring operational weakness.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES ON QUOTES AND CALLBACKS: Several reviews describe estimators or technicians promising to follow up with quotes or return calls and never doing so, suggesting inconsistent office-to-field communication.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES IN MINORITY OF REVIEWS: A smaller but notable set of reviews describes work that failed shortly after completion, incorrect diagnoses, upselling of unnecessary work, and jobs left incomplete or requiring third-party correction.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2005 to 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement in recent operations, but the pricing complaints persist into the most recent period.
• BLANK REVIEWS WITH RATINGS: A significant number of reviews contain no text — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume (approximately 80+ blank reviews) inflates the raw star average and should be noted.

This WW Score of 74.2 is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence; the score reliably reflects a company with strong technical skill and professionalism but a well-documented and persistent pattern of premium pricing, occasional scheduling failures, and inconsistent follow-through that meaningfully limits the score.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to cover multiple distinct businesses operating under similar 'My Plumber' branding across different cities and states, which significantly complicates scoring. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, friendliness, technical knowledge, and fair pricing — with many customers becoming repeat clients. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 35–40 reviews) describe serious failures including no-shows, unreturned calls, warranty non-compliance, work left incomplete after payment, billing disputes, property damage, and in at least one case alleged threats of violence. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while others report unexpected price increases, bait-and-switch billing, and feeling overcharged. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, callbacks ignored, and work that failed shortly after completion.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover multiple unrelated businesses operating under 'My Plumber,' 'My Plumber Inc.,' 'Clog Pro,' 'Precision Plumber Buckeye,' '1 Buckeye Plumbing,' and other names. Scores should not be attributed to any single contractor without filtering by specific business identity.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several reviews from dates 2024-12-11 and 2025-03-11 use nearly identical generic phrasing ('arrived fast,' 'skilled,' 'professional,' 'handled the repair seamlessly') with no specific technician names, job details, or unique identifiers. These are flagged as potentially inauthentic.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives and some negatives.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes alleged threats of violence by an owner (Steve Martin, Arizona). At least two reviews describe property damage (cracked tile, broken bathtub stopper) with no remediation. At least three reviews describe warranty non-compliance and abandoned work after payment.
• NO-SHOW AND RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Approximately 12–15 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments, unreturned calls, or complete failure to follow through on scheduled work — a recurring pattern across multiple named technicians and locations.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 55–60 reviews contain no text, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total review volume.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to the multi-entity nature of this dataset, the high volume of serious negative reviews, and fake review suspicion, all dimension scores were held conservative per Rule 7.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but LOW entity reliability — the dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses, making this score unsuitable for evaluating any single contractor without first filtering reviews by specific business name, location, and technician.

Mr. Rooter of Greenville demonstrates strong professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising named technicians by name and highlighting courteous, prompt service — including emergency and after-hours calls. Project completion scores are solid, with most jobs described as finished same-day or within a short timeframe, though a handful of older reviews cite follow-up failures, forgotten estimates, and incomplete diagnoses. The pricing dimension is the most damaging factor in this score: a meaningful cluster of reviews — spanning multiple years — explicitly describes overcharging, inflated quotes, misleading upsells (false water heater age, fabricated toilet brand claims), and pricing that was double or more than competitors. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, but is undermined by several reviews where technicians misdiagnosed problems or recommended unnecessary replacements. The overall score reflects a business with genuine service strengths but a persistent and documented pattern of pricing concerns that cannot be ignored.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2022, 2024) explicitly describe overcharging, inflated quotes, and pricing 2x–4x higher than competitors. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• DISHONESTY FLAGS: At least two reviews allege technicians provided false information — one claiming a 1-year-old water heater was 13 years old to push a $1,500 replacement, another claiming a toilet brand was exclusive to Mr. Rooter when it is sold at Home Depot for $262.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (full pipe replacement, new toilet, new water heater) that were later found to be unnecessary by competing plumbers at a fraction of the cost.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: One review describes Mr. Rooter failing to respond to a service request for 4+ days after promising contact within 30 minutes, resulting in a kitchen flood. Another review describes a forgotten estimate that required the customer to follow up.
• BILLING DISPUTE: One review describes a threat of a lien when a customer disputed being charged full price for a reduced scope of work.
• FAKE/THIN REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: Approximately 13 reviews contain no text (blank, '.', 'unknown', 'Great!', 'Awesome.', 'Well.' etc.) and contribute no usable data. These were excluded from scoring. Several 2025 reviews are highly generic with no specifics beyond a technician name, which slightly inflates recent positive signals.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-01-06 and 2023-01-05 are word-for-word identical (Cole Reeder and Jesus Nunez review). This appears to be a duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative pricing and dishonesty reviews are from 2013–2022. The 2024–2025 reviews are predominantly positive, which may indicate improvement — but the 2024 'ripped off' review suggests pricing issues have not been fully resolved.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025 — nearly 19 years. Older reviews (pre-2020) were given reduced weight in scoring, but negative patterns from that era are noted as context.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (101 reviews, 88 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction — however, the score should be interpreted with caution due to a well-documented and recurring pattern of pricing complaints and at least two credible allegations of technician dishonesty, which meaningfully suppress the pricing dimension and temper overall trust in the business.

Waldrop demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, politeness, and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—numerous customers report overcharging, aggressive upselling, and lack of transparency in quotes. Project completion shows mixed results, with many successful jobs but notable failures in follow-through, callback responsiveness, and honoring commitments. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly positive, but older reviews reveal systemic issues with customer service, scheduling reliability, and ethical sales practices that suggest ongoing structural problems.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 30 reviews from June 9, 2025 and June 6, 2025 contain nearly identical phrasing, generic praise with minimal specifics, and suspiciously repetitive technician names (Chad Tucker, Brandon, Alex, Zach/Peter, Clark appearing multiple times with identical language). These appear to be artificially generated or duplicated reviews. Confidence in positive scores reduced accordingly.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: 28 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of overcharging, hidden fees, aggressive upselling, and lack of transparent quotes. Multiple customers report being charged $300-$700 for simple 20-minute jobs, with some claiming deliberate manipulation (e.g., disconnecting power to justify system replacement). This is the single largest source of negative feedback.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Multiple customers report promised callbacks never occurring, quotes never delivered, and service appointments scheduled but never fulfilled. This suggests systemic issues with customer service infrastructure and accountability.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are overwhelmingly positive (likely including fake reviews), while reviews from 2018-2024 reveal serious systemic problems with scheduling, follow-through, and ethical practices. Historical pattern suggests issues may persist despite recent positive sentiment.
• SALES PRESSURE DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews describe high-pressure sales tactics, fear-based recommendations (e.g., claiming imminent failure to justify expensive repairs), and targeting of seniors and less-informed customers.
• WARRANTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Several customers report warranty disputes, refusal to honor warranties, and management unwillingness to address complaints or provide refunds.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION due to suspected fake reviews inflating recent scores. The company demonstrates genuine strengths in technical professionalism and expertise, but is severely compromised by documented pricing manipulation, poor follow-through on commitments, and questionable sales ethics. Historical reviews (2018-2024) are more reliable indicators of systemic issues than recent reviews. Customers should obtain multiple quotes, verify all charges in writing before service, and be skeptical of pressure to purchase additional services during maintenance visits.

Griffin Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, technical expertise, and project completion capabilities, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and skilled technicians across 89+ reviews. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with 47 reviews explicitly criticizing costs as excessive, inflated, or exploitative—ranging from complaints about $500+ charges for simple repairs to allegations of price gouging and deceptive upselling tactics. The company excels in responsiveness and workmanship quality but struggles with value perception. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, while older reviews (2014–2020) contain more severe pricing complaints and allegations of manipulative sales practices.

• PRICING PATTERN: 47 reviews explicitly mention excessive pricing. Multiple reviewers report charges 3–10x higher than competitors for identical work (e.g., $700 vs. $100 for toilet repair; $500 vs. $75 for gas line connection; $1,800 vs. $52 for water heater setup). This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (2019–2020) describe aggressive upselling tactics: technicians performing unsolicited home inspections, pressuring customers into unnecessary replacements, and quoting $9,000+ for routine maintenance on well-functioning homes. One reviewer reported a technician spending 3 hours in truck/upselling rather than fixing the stated problem.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Several reviews allege bait-and-switch tactics: 'free' camera inspections that require $79 service fee + mandatory unclogging before inspection; coupon terms buried in fine print; $79 diagnostic fee not credited to work. One 2021 review describes this as 'deceptive marketing tricks.'
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews report incomplete repairs (garbage disposal installed but pipes incompatible; water heater leak recurred 3 days after 'fix'; drain unclogged but still backed up after 3 visits). One review documented a broken pipe left unfixed for 6 years after installation.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: One 2019 review describes technician arriving on time but then spending 45 minutes on personal conference call, then 30–40 minutes in truck writing quotes, ignoring customer's stated repair need. Another describes two separate technicians sent for same issue without coordination.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2025-06 and 2025-05 show suspiciously high concentration of 5-star ratings with generic praise ('amazing service,' 'wonderful company,' 'highly recommend') and minimal specifics. However, these are balanced by detailed negative reviews, so pattern is not conclusive.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, May–June) are uniformly 5-star with minimal criticism. Older reviews (2014–2020) contain more detailed complaints and lower ratings. This suggests either genuine service improvement or selective review filtering.
• MANAGER RESPONSE PATTERN: Multiple reviews note that when customers complained about pricing, managers defended high prices rather than offering refunds or adjustments. One review states manager 'just trying to defend his high prices' rather than resolve the issue.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company with a stark internal contradiction: excellent professionalism and technical skill (HIGH confidence across 89 mentions) undermined by systematic pricing practices that 47 reviewers explicitly describe as excessive or exploitative (HIGH confidence). The score is pulled down significantly by pricing, which carries 15% weight but shows the most consistent negative pattern across the review timeline. Customers should expect high-quality work and professional service but should obtain multiple quotes and be prepared for costs substantially above market rates. The company's own pricing defense (rather than adjustment) in response to complaints suggests this is intentional strategy, not error.

Ken's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with many customers praising technicians' knowledge and work quality. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite excessive charges, lack of transparency in estimates, and perceived price gouging that substantially undermine customer trust. Project completion is reliable but inconsistent, with some no-shows and scheduling issues documented. Professionalism varies by technician; while many are courteous and efficient, communication gaps and occasional rudeness from office staff create friction. The company's failure to respond constructively to negative feedback is a notable weakness.

• PRICING PATTERN: 28 mentions of pricing issues across 127 reviews (22% of total). Complaints range from quotes significantly higher than final bills, to charges perceived as 2-3x market rate, to undisclosed fees. This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews indicate service varies dramatically by technician. Some technicians (Keith, Ben, Noah) receive consistent praise; others receive complaints about rudeness, lack of professionalism, or poor work.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING ISSUES: At least 6 reviews document missed appointments, late arrivals, or poor communication about arrival times. One detailed 2025 review describes 11+ call-outs with repeated no-shows.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Several reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, damage to property during service (ceiling damage, siding damage), and work that did not meet specifications.
• UNRESPONSIVE TO COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews note the company does not respond to negative feedback or attempt to resolve disputes, which is flagged as unprofessional by customers familiar with industry standards.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews cite $49-$158 diagnostic/trip fees that customers view as excessive, particularly when no work is performed or when the diagnosis is incorrect.
• RECENT NEGATIVE ESCALATION: Two detailed 1-star reviews from May 2025 and April 2024 describe serious incidents (gas line damage, no-shows, overcharges, gaslighting by staff) that suggest ongoing systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONCENTRATION: Approximately 75% of 5-star reviews lack specific detail and use generic praise language ('awesome,' 'highly recommend,' 'great service'). While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the pattern warrants caution. However, detailed negative reviews are highly specific and credible, suggesting genuine customer dissatisfaction.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company in decline. The HIGH confidence is justified by large mention counts across all dimensions and a substantial body of detailed, specific feedback spanning 15+ years. However, the score masks significant internal inconsistency: technical competence and professionalism are genuine strengths, but pricing practices and customer service responsiveness are serious weaknesses that have worsened in recent years. Customers should expect variable service quality, verify all quotes in writing, and be prepared for final bills to exceed estimates. The company's unwillingness to address complaints constructively is a major red flag.