Find Nearby Plumbers In North Charleston, South Carolina

Melfi Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with all 6 reviews explicitly mentioning positive traits such as punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and courteous communication. Project completion is also well-supported, with 5 reviews describing jobs that were finished quickly and thoroughly, including same-day service and clean worksites. Pricing is mentioned favorably in 2 reviews — one citing a $1,000 savings over competitors — but the LIMITED mention count means this score carries low confidence. Experience is referenced in 3 reviews through descriptions of effective problem-solving and skilled workmanship, earning a MODERATE confidence score. The overall picture is positive, though the small review pool and age of most reviews temper full confidence.

• Only 6 total reviews — this is a very small sample size and limits the reliability of all dimension scores.
• 4 of 6 reviews are older than 3 years, and 5 of 6 are older than 1 year. Only 1 review (April 2024) falls within the past 12 months. Recency is a significant concern — business quality may have changed.
• All reviews are 4 or 5 stars with no negative feedback. While not conclusive, the absence of any critical reviews across all 6 submissions warrants mild caution.
• Reviews are generally specific enough (names mentioned, details about job type, baby sleeping nearby, etc.) to not suggest obvious fake review patterns, but the uniformly positive tone across a small set should be noted.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — the very small review count and predominantly outdated reviews (5 of 6 older than 12 months) mean the score cannot be considered a fully reliable representation of current service quality.

Across the reviews, this contractor receives strong praise for technical skill, honesty, and professionalism, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out Dewey Jones as a trustworthy and knowledgeable master plumber. Project completion is generally well-regarded, with one standout example of going above and beyond by reassembling a bathroom shelf unprompted. However, pricing is a mixed signal — one reviewer explicitly called the service 'pricey,' one flagged a lack of upfront pricing transparency and unprofessional behavior, and one praised transparent quoting, resulting in a conservative pricing score. The single 1-star review raises a meaningful concern about communication and pricing practices that cannot be dismissed, particularly given it describes a failure to resolve the issue. The majority of positive reviews are from 2012–2015, which significantly reduces their relevance to current service quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: 7 of 9 reviews are from 2012–2015, making them 9–13 years old. Only 1 review is from the past 3 years (2023). Current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — PRICING & PROFESSIONALISM: One 1-star review (2020) explicitly cites lack of upfront pricing transparency and unprofessional conduct, with no resolution offered. This is a credible, specific complaint and has been weighted accordingly.
• POSSIBLE CONCENTRATION BIAS: Multiple early positive reviews (2014–2015) reference 'Dewey' by name with similar praise themes (honest, trustworthy, great work). While not conclusively fake, the clustering of similarly-worded reviews in a short window warrants mild caution.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 9 total reviews span over a decade, which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the heavily dated review pool, low total volume, and one credible negative review that introduces meaningful uncertainty around pricing and professionalism.

Coast Plumbing and Low Cost Plumbing appear to be two separate entities reviewed in this dataset. Coast Plumbing (majority of recent reviews from 2024-2025) demonstrates strong professionalism and experience with consistent positive feedback on technician quality, responsiveness, and technical skill. However, pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing high service fees and unexpected charges. Low Cost Plumbing (older reviews 2013-2022) shows a mixed track record with strong loyalty from long-term customers praising affordability and quality work, but several negative reviews document poor communication, no-shows, and questionable inspection practices. The dataset contains significant recency bias, with most Coast Plumbing reviews clustered on 2024-06-09, and includes multiple empty/minimal reviews that reduce data quality. Overall score reflects strong technical execution offset by pricing transparency issues and historical project completion concerns.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTERING: 24 reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps suggests potential bulk upload or review manipulation. Multiple empty reviews (no text) on same date further supports this.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews contain only generic praise ('Great great', 'Fast and professional service!') with no specific details. Combined with clustering, confidence in positive ratings should be reduced.
• TWO DISTINCT BUSINESSES: Dataset appears to mix Coast Plumbing (recent, premium pricing) and Low Cost Plumbing (older, budget-focused). These should not be conflated. Low Cost Plumbing has documented issues with no-shows and poor communication (2014-2015 reviews).
• PRICING CONTRADICTION: Coast Plumbing reviews praise 'fair pricing' and 'transparent quotes' but also contain complaints of $1,500/hr rates, $375 minimum charges, and $557 for 45-min drain work. One detailed negative review (2024-06-09, 1-star) documents incomplete work and overpricing.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One detailed 1-star review (2024-06-09) documents incomplete drain clearing by Coast Plumbing, with follow-up work by competitors costing 1/3 the price and achieving better results. This contradicts majority positive reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: 39 of 61 reviews are from 2024 (mostly clustered on one date). Only 22 reviews span 2013-2023, making historical reliability assessment difficult.
• LOW COST PLUMBING CONCERNS: Multiple 1-star reviews (2015, 2014, 2013) document no-shows, delayed callbacks, and poor inspection practices. One Realtor review notes inflated sewer line quotes ($14,000 vs. $225 actual repair).
• MISSING DATA: 5 reviews contain no text, reducing analyzable content.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. The dataset appears to conflate two separate businesses (Coast Plumbing and Low Cost Plumbing) with different service models and pricing structures. The suspicious clustering of 24 identical-timestamp reviews on 2024-06-09, combined with multiple empty reviews and generic praise, suggests potential review manipulation. While Coast Plumbing shows strong recent professionalism and experience scores, pricing transparency issues and at least one detailed complaint of incomplete work undermine confidence. Low Cost Plumbing's older reviews reveal serious project completion and communication failures. The score of 72.8 reflects these contradictions and should not be relied upon for high-stakes decisions without independent verification.

Mueller's Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across a small set of reviews, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers highlight quick responsiveness, friendly attitude, and strong communication even during difficult circumstances. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by one review noting a job could not be finished in a single visit due to unforeseen issues, though follow-through was ultimately honored. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where it was described as reasonable with a military discount offered, making that score low-confidence. Experience and technical knowledge are referenced in a few reviews with positive but general language, supporting a moderate score without exceptional specificity.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review is from 2019, which is over 5 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring.
• Reviews from 2022 and 2023 are also outside the preferred 12-month recency window; only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months.
• Most reviews are brief and lack specific detail, which limits scoring precision across all dimensions.
• No negative reviews present — while this may reflect genuine quality, the small sample size makes it impossible to rule out selection bias or incomplete review representation.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning multiple years, with limited recency and moderate detail, and should be considered a preliminary indicator rather than a definitive assessment of contractor quality.

A Good Plumber presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. The majority of positive reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Kevin, Brandon, Terry, and Branden — for being professional, friendly, and technically capable, which lifts the experience and professionalism scores. However, a persistent and serious pattern of no-shows, full voicemail boxes, unreturned calls, and abandoned or incomplete jobs significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by satisfied customers, but at least two reviews explicitly describe overcharging and broken promises of refunds, preventing a higher score. The volume and specificity of negative reviews — spanning from 2014 through 2024 — indicate these are not isolated incidents but recurring operational failures that represent a genuine reliability risk for prospective customers.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 5 reviews across multiple years (2018, 2024) describe scheduled appointments where the company failed to appear and did not answer calls or return messages. This is a systemic issue, not an isolated incident.
• FULL VOICEMAIL BOX: Multiple reviewers across different time periods report being unable to leave a voicemail because the box was full, suggesting chronic communication infrastructure failures.
• ABANDONED JOB: One review (2019) explicitly states the company started a job, accepted a quote over $1,000, and then stopped showing up and stopped returning calls — a serious project completion failure.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2019) alleges the company double-billed two parties for the same service call and that the owner refused to respond. A separate reviewer (2018) alleges overcharging and a promised refund that was never delivered. A third reviewer (2024) describes a similar broken refund promise over 3 months. This pattern across multiple years is a significant red flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND PROPERTY DAMAGE: One review (2018) states the plumber left a 6-inch hole in drywall without repair after cutting it open. Another (2023) describes a leak from the company's own pipe installation work that took over a month to fix and caused an $800 water bill.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical full text appear in the dataset (the wobbly toilet review, dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-11-30). The earlier date may be the original; the later entry may be a duplicate submission. This was excluded from inflating mention counts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contain no text (only a star rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) include both strong positives and serious negatives, indicating the operational issues have not been resolved over time. Negative patterns date back to at least 2014, suggesting long-standing structural problems.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): Several short, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Good job and absolutely Friendly', 'Very well. I was very pleased. Excellent.', 'easy', 'unknown') lack any specific detail. While not conclusive, these reviews provide minimal evidentiary value and were weighted conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (68 total, 62 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should treat the score with caution given the documented and recurring patterns of no-shows, unreturned communications, billing disputes, and incomplete work that appear consistently across multiple years and multiple reviewers.

AAA Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a deeply mixed picture. Professionalism scores moderately — the majority of reviewers praise courteous, prompt, and friendly technicians by name (Rob, Jesse, Chad, Steve, Lee, Stan), but a meaningful minority of reviews describe serious failures including rude office staff, no-shows, missed callbacks, threatening customers with collections, and one incident of smoking on the job. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe being overcharged, receiving inconsistent quotes, or finding the same work done for a fraction of the price elsewhere — though a smaller number praise fair or upfront pricing. Project completion is also mixed — many jobs are described as completed thoroughly and on time, but there are credible, detailed accounts of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unfixed problem, work left incomplete after full payment ($27,000 job), and warranty disputes. Experience scores somewhat better, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, though a few reviews describe plumbers who did not know what they were doing or could not diagnose basic issues.

• 23 reviews contain no text (blank or single-character entries such as 'unknown', '.', 'l', 'well', 'great') and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute only to raw review count.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2023-06-10 and 2021-06-10 with no timestamps (only date) may indicate batch imports from a third-party platform rather than organic submissions — treat with moderate caution.
• Several highly positive reviews are generic and lack specifics (e.g., 'Great service', 'Very professional', 'Excellent experience overall') — these were counted for professionalism mentions but weighted conservatively.
• The review corpus spans from 2006 to 2025, meaning a large portion of reviews (pre-2023) are more than 12 months old. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show a notable deterioration in professionalism and project completion scores, suggesting the company's quality may have declined.
• The most recent high-detail negative review (Dec 2024, 1-star) describes an 8-year business relationship ending due to aggressive collections behavior, incompetent plumbers, and poor communication — this is given elevated weight due to recency and specificity.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, but the volume of generic 5-star reviews with no detail warrants conservative scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, 140 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the score's direction, but users should note that recent reviews trend more negatively and the score may overstate current service quality due to the weight of older positive reviews.