Find Nearby Plumbers In Apopka, Florida

Ross Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive review record across a large volume of reviews spanning over two decades, with the vast majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) being strongly positive and highly detailed. Professionalism is the most frequently cited dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, and cleanliness. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting costs came in at or below expectations. Project completion scores are strong, with most jobs described as fully resolved on the first visit, though two notable negative reviews — one from 2018 describing repeated failed visits and refusal to measure water pressure, and one from 2006 describing code violations and leaking solder joints discovered a year later — prevent a higher score. Experience is well-supported by specific mentions of technical skill, problem-solving, and knowledgeable technicians, though the 2018 negative review and a 2001 complaint about unresolved work introduce some drag on this dimension.

• Several reviews from 2014–2016 contain only the word 'unknown' with no substantive content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-03-11 (approximately 12 reviews on the same date) raises a mild flag for possible review clustering or batch submission, though the reviews vary in detail and name specific technicians, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• Two reviews dated 2025-05-10 and one dated 2025-03-11 are completely blank (no text) and were excluded from scoring.
• One 1-star review (2025-03-11) describes a company vehicle driver behaving aggressively on the road — this is a conduct/professionalism flag but does not relate to plumbing service quality directly; it was noted but given limited weight.
• Negative reviews from 2018 (repeated failed diagnosis, refusal to measure pressure), 2006 (code violations, leaking joints discovered later), 2003 (unprofessional conduct, dirty shoes, unnecessary staff), and 2001 (unresolved problem, threat of legal action) represent genuine quality concerns, though they are older and outweighed by the volume of recent positives.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2024–2025 and reflect consistently high performance. Reviews older than 3 years were given reduced weight in scoring. The negative reviews are predominantly from 2018 and earlier.
• One review from 2018 (rating 1.0) describes a staff member who appeared unknowledgeable about a water filter issue — this was counted as a negative experience mention for both professionalism and experience dimensions.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with strong recency, named technicians, and specific job details across all four dimensions, making it one of the more reliable scores possible — though the presence of several credible negative reviews from prior years and a small number of blank or content-free reviews introduce modest uncertainty.

Kings Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (86.5) and experience (85.1). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with extensive evidence of same-day or next-day service and knowledgeable technicians. Pricing is the weakest dimension (78.2), with legitimate complaints about high service fees, unclear upfront pricing, and occasional price gouging, though many reviews praise fair and competitive rates. Project completion is solid (84.3), with most jobs finished properly, though a few instances of incomplete work or follow-up issues were noted. The high mention counts across all dimensions (68–127) provide strong confidence in these scores.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews cite high service fees ($95 site visit fee, $455 for a 40-minute job, $305 for 30-minute drain unclog) and unclear upfront pricing. Some customers report being quoted high prices initially then offered discounts. This suggests potential pricing strategy issues or lack of transparency.
• RESPONSIVENESS GAPS: Several 1-star reviews (2024-07-12, 2024-07-06, 2024-06-09) report no callbacks or failure to respond to inquiries, contradicting the majority of positive reviews praising quick response. This indicates inconsistent customer service.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: One detailed negative review (2023-10-31) describes poor workmanship (1-hour drain unclog, drain stop left stuck, messy work area) and unprofessional behavior (technician requesting positive review). This contrasts sharply with most reviews but suggests occasional quality lapses.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2023–2025, with a notable cluster on 2023-06-09 and 2024-06-09 (possibly bulk uploads or review campaign). Older reviews (2012–2015) are sparse and generic. This may inflate current perception.
• GENERIC/EMPTY REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text or only 'unknown' (at least 8 instances), limiting data quality. Several reviews are extremely brief ('Great!', '..', 'as expected') and provide minimal substantive information.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2023-06-09 and 2024-06-09 clusters contain many 5-star reviews with similar phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'reasonable price,' 'highly recommend') but lack specific details. While not conclusive, this warrants caution.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING TRANSPARENCY: The $95 site visit fee mentioned in 2024-07-12 review is not consistently mentioned in other reviews, suggesting either a recent policy change or selective application.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 176 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions. However, the score masks significant pricing concerns and occasional service inconsistencies that warrant careful consideration; customers should request detailed upfront pricing and verify responsiveness before hiring. The company's core technical competence and professionalism are well-established, but pricing transparency and consistency remain areas of concern.

Tom Walsh of Eustis Quality Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, friendly demeanor, and responsive communication across 18 reviews. His technical expertise and workmanship quality are highly regarded, with 15 mentions of skilled problem-solving and quality installations. Project completion is generally reliable, though 4 reviews mention callbacks or rework needed, slightly reducing this dimension's score. Pricing is perceived as fair and reasonable by most customers (8 mentions), with Tom actively suggesting cost-saving measures. However, two significant negative reviews from 2006-2012 describe poor workmanship, unprofessional behavior, and incomplete corrections, which temper the overall score despite the predominance of positive feedback.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2013-2018 (10+ years old). Only 1 review from 2021 (no-show incident). Limited recent data to assess current service quality.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Two 1-star reviews (2006, 2012) describe serious issues: mixed hot/cold lines, ignored repair requests, poor invoice practices, and unprofessional installer behavior. These contrast sharply with predominantly 5-star reviews, suggesting either inconsistent service quality or possible personnel changes.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only single words ('Excellent!', 'Great', 'unknown', '.') with no substantive detail. These 6 reviews provide minimal evidence and reduce overall data quality.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: 2021 review reports no-show and no callback for scheduled appointment—critical professionalism failure. This is the most recent review and suggests potential current operational issues.
• CALLBACK PATTERN: At least 4 reviews mention rework or callbacks (2012, 2006 x2, 2014), indicating occasional quality control issues despite generally positive outcomes.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the volume of positive reviews and consistency of praise for professionalism and expertise are compelling, the age of most data (10+ years), presence of serious negative reviews describing workmanship failures, multiple generic/low-detail reviews, and a recent no-show incident significantly reduce confidence in current service reliability. The score reflects historical performance more than present-day operations.

Sunshine Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians (Kevin, John, Ian, and others named frequently). Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored. Technical expertise is evident across multiple complex repairs. However, pricing is a significant weakness—multiple reviews explicitly cite excessive charges, with complaints about $285 fill valves (retail $20), $373 for simple nut removal, $2,700 water heater quotes (vs. $1,600 elsewhere), and $475 labor-only quotes. This pricing concern, combined with 4 negative reviews citing rudeness and poor communication in some interactions, prevents a higher overall score despite predominantly positive feedback.

• PRICING CONCERN: 6 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, excessive charges, or unfair quotes. This is the most consistent negative pattern in the dataset.
• INCONSISTENT CUSTOMER SERVICE: 4 one-star reviews cite rudeness, condescension, hanging up on customers, and defensive management responses. This contrasts sharply with the majority of positive professionalism reviews.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT: One 1-star review (2022-04-09) reports floor torn up and left unfinished, with the repair itself not completed—a serious project completion failure.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One 1-star review (2021-10-13) describes poor guidance during quote process and dismissive attitude ('I already told you').
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews (no text, only 5-star rating) and several generic 1-2 word reviews ('Great service!', 'Quick and reliable!') appear in the dataset. However, the detailed negative reviews are specific and credible, so overall fake review risk is LIMITED rather than HIGH.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2016-2019) contain more detailed negative feedback about pricing. This suggests either improved operations or selection bias in recent reviews.
• SERVICE CALL FEES: Multiple reviews mention $145-$175 service call charges that competitors waive, contributing to pricing perception issues.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 73 reviews with HIGH confidence across three dimensions (professionalism, project completion, experience) and MODERATE confidence on pricing. The score accurately reflects a company that excels in responsiveness, technical skill, and professionalism but is significantly hampered by pricing practices that multiple customers perceive as exploitative. The presence of credible negative reviews alongside positive ones suggests the score reflects genuine operational inconsistencies rather than fake reviews.

Leonard demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor across multiple reviews. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished on time and follow-up callbacks honored. Technical skill is evident in complex installations and problem-solving. However, pricing transparency is a significant weakness—one detailed review explicitly criticizes lack of itemized estimates, unclear billing structure, and perceived overcharging ($1,800 for installation without breakdown; $300 for parts deemed excessive). This pricing concern, though mentioned in only 2 reviews, substantially impacts overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 6+ years old (2010–2013). Only 2 reviews from past 5 years (2017, 2021). Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One detailed 3-star review explicitly flags lack of itemized estimates, no hourly rate disclosure, and perceived overcharging. This is a material professional practice issue.
• UNUSABLE REVIEW: One review contains only 'unknown' text with 1-star rating—excluded from analysis.
• SMALL SAMPLE: Only 6 usable reviews limits confidence in overall score. Recommend collecting more recent data.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (6 usable reviews), significant age of most data (6+ years), and a documented pricing transparency issue that raises questions about professional billing practices despite strong technical and interpersonal performance.

Select Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many customers praising responsiveness, workmanship, and owner involvement. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion and follow-through failures, including non-responsive callbacks, incomplete deliverables (missing drawings), and billing disputes. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, with customers reporting quotes that were dramatically exceeded, lack of transparency on additional charges, and disputed test results leading to unnecessary repair estimates. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service in some cases contrasts sharply with organizational failures and poor communication in others.

• RECENCY BIAS: 11 of 20 reviews are from 2014 or earlier (more than 10 years old). Only 3 reviews from 2023-2024. Recent performance may differ significantly from historical data.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2021, 2011, 2011) report serious pricing issues including quotes exceeded by 3x, disputed leak test charges ($612), and lack of refunds. Pattern suggests systemic pricing transparency problems.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention failure to complete promised deliverables (drawing not sent after 2 months of requests, missed callback appointments, incomplete water heater estimate).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising professionalism and 1-2 star reviews describing disorganization, incompetence, and poor communication. Suggests either highly variable service or different crews.
• ONE REVIEW LACKS DATA: Review dated 2014-06-23 contains only 'unknown' as text and provides no substantive information.
• OLDER REVIEWS SKEW POSITIVE: Most 5-star reviews are from 2007-2016. Most negative reviews are from 2014-2021. Suggests possible service quality decline or selection bias in recent reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to significant recency concerns (55% of reviews are 10+ years old) and a clear pattern of billing/follow-through failures in more recent reviews that contradict the positive historical narrative. The score reflects historical performance but may not accurately represent current service quality.