Find Nearby Plumbers In Orlando, Florida

Dominion Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by consistent professionalism and technical expertise across 26 and 18 mentions respectively. The company excels in communication, punctuality, and knowledgeable workmanship, with many long-term customers (20+ years) citing reliability and trustworthiness. Pricing is competitive and transparent in most cases (10 mentions). However, project completion shows notable weakness (78.0 score) with multiple documented instances of missed appointments, cancellations, and incomplete follow-through on callbacks. Three severe negative reviews from 2013, 2020, and 2021 describe unprofessional behavior, broken commitments, and damaged customer property without accountability, significantly impacting the completion dimension.

• CRITICAL: Three detailed negative reviews (2013, 2020, 2021) describe serious professional failures including missed appointments, property damage, broken promises, and refusal to take responsibility. The 2020 review is particularly detailed and credible, describing a bathroom remodel project with multiple cancellations, damaged fixtures, and dishonest behavior.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Multiple reviews mention cancellations and rescheduling issues (2013 review: 4 days of wasted time with 3 cancellations; 2020 review: multiple postponements). This contradicts the 'punctual and responsive' narrative in positive reviews.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews from 2024-2025 use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend', 'professional', 'communication') with minimal specifics. However, older reviews (2015-2023) contain specific details and long-term customer relationships, suggesting authenticity.
• NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference 'Jorge', 'George', 'Louis Groe', and 'Jeorge' - unclear if these are the same person or different team members. The 2020 review specifically names 'Louis Groe' as owner and describes severe misconduct.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2024-2025 (recent), while serious negative reviews are older (2013, 2020, 2021). Cannot determine if issues were resolved or if company reputation improved.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings), reducing data quality.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects predominantly positive recent feedback on professionalism and expertise, three credible detailed negative reviews document serious failures in project completion and professional integrity that are not adequately reflected in the aggregate score. The significant gap between glowing recent reviews and documented past misconduct suggests either genuine improvement or potential review manipulation. Customers should independently verify current performance and request detailed written contracts before engaging this company.

The Plumbing Specialist demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (87.5) and pricing fairness (85.0). Recent reviews from 2024 consistently praise punctuality, communication, honesty, and skilled workmanship. Project completion scores reflect reliable job finishing and follow-through, though one very old review (2010) noted incomplete work. The company shows solid technical expertise and problem-solving ability. However, a significant 2020 incident report describing aggressive driving behavior and verbal assault substantially impacts trust, despite being an outlier among 20 other positive reviews.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review from 2020-08-19 alleges serious misconduct—aggressive driving, verbal assault, and threatening behavior by a company vehicle operator. This is a severe reputational and safety concern that contradicts the otherwise positive service record. This incident should be independently verified before engaging services.
• RECENCY BIAS: 7 of 21 reviews are from 2024 (recent), while 8 reviews are older than 10 years (2005-2009). Recent reviews are uniformly 5-star with detailed positive feedback; older reviews show more variation (including 1-star and 3-star ratings). This suggests either genuine service improvement over time or potential selection bias in recent reviews.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Recent 2024 reviews (particularly 2024-07-02 and 2024-06-09) contain unusually detailed, enthusiastic language with similar structural patterns (problem → solution → praise). While not definitively fake, the consistency and glowing tone warrant caution.
• RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: Multiple older reviews (2007, 2006) mention difficulty reaching the company by phone or delayed callbacks, though recent reviews report excellent communication. This suggests either past problems that have been resolved or inconsistent service quality.
• ONE INCOMPLETE JOB: 2010 review states 'no work was done' with no explanation, suggesting a failed appointment or abandoned job. Context is unclear but represents a project completion failure.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while recent reviews (2024) are consistently strong and detailed, the 2020 serious misconduct allegation is a critical red flag that cannot be ignored and should be investigated independently before hiring. The company's service quality appears to have improved significantly over the past 5 years, but the older mixed reviews and communication issues suggest historical inconsistency. Recommend direct verification of the 2020 incident and recent references before engagement.

Robert from Handyman Today demonstrates strong overall performance across professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise. He consistently arrives on time, communicates clearly, maintains clean work areas, and delivers quality craftsmanship across diverse projects. However, pricing emerges as a significant concern, with multiple reviews explicitly citing overcharges, inflated quotes, and price increases mid-project. While most customers praise his work quality and responsiveness, the pricing complaints are substantial enough to materially impact the overall score. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects excellent execution and professionalism tempered by legitimate pricing concerns that recur throughout the review set.

• PRICING PATTERN DETECTED: Six reviews (1-star and 4-star ratings) explicitly cite excessive pricing, overcharges, or quote inflation. Examples include: $1,250 for basic door installation (vs. $450-$1,000 elsewhere), $250 diagnostic fee for a loose bulb, $550 for moving a ring 2 feet, $800 for three faucet installations, and mid-project price increases. This is not isolated complaint noise—it represents a systemic pricing concern.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Two reviews are nearly identical word-for-word (dated 2024-06-08 and 2023-09-09, both about shelves/frames/leveling/pricing/website scheduling). This exact duplication is suspicious and suggests possible review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Approximately 40% of reviews are from 2022 or earlier. More recent reviews (2024-2025) show mixed sentiment with pricing complaints appearing in newer submissions, suggesting the pricing issue may be ongoing or worsening.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING NARRATIVE: Reviews describe Robert as 'reasonably priced' and 'fair pricing' in many cases, but multiple detailed complaints describe the same person charging significantly above market rates for identical services. This contradiction warrants caution in interpreting pricing dimension.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing professionalism and project completion quality (both HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension should be weighted cautiously—while based on MODERATE confidence (23 mentions), the pricing complaints are detailed, specific, and recurring enough to suggest genuine customer dissatisfaction that may not be fully captured in a single score. Prospective customers should obtain multiple quotes and clarify pricing terms in writing before engaging services.

Kehle Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across nearly all reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, politeness, and courteous behavior. Project completion is generally solid with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction, though a few older reviews mention follow-up issues and staffing gaps. Pricing is fair overall with multiple mentions of competitive rates compared to competitors, though two recent reviews (2023) flagged quote discrepancies and unexpected charges. Technical expertise is evident with customers noting knowledgeable diagnostics and efficient problem-solving. The company's primary weakness is administrative responsiveness—multiple reviews cite delayed callbacks and poor follow-up on estimates.

• PATTERN DETECTED: 28 reviews dated 2024-06-09 with identical 5.0 ratings and similar generic praise structure suggest potential review clustering or bulk submission. While individual reviews contain specific details, the concentration and timing warrant caution.
• RECENCY BIAS: 56% of reviews are from 2024-06-09 onward. Older reviews (2012, 2017) contain serious complaints about staffing and customer service that are absent from recent reviews, suggesting either operational improvement or review selection bias.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS PATTERN: The three 1-star and one 2-star reviews (2012, 2017, 2023) all cite administrative/office failures (missed appointments, no callbacks, quote discrepancies, staffing shortages) rather than technician performance. This suggests systemic office management issues distinct from field work quality.
• QUOTE ACCURACY ISSUE: Two 2023 reviews explicitly mention quote-to-final-price discrepancies ($150→$220, $213 for dishwasher install vs. Home Depot pricing), indicating potential estimating or transparency problems that may persist.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (2025-01-10, 2024-06-09) contain only 5.0 ratings with no text, reducing data quality slightly.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for field technician performance (professionalism and experience are HIGH confidence), but should be interpreted cautiously regarding administrative responsiveness and pricing transparency, as office-side issues appear systemic and recent reviews may not fully capture ongoing quote accuracy problems.

Charlotin Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 26 reviews. Project completion is solid with 20 mentions of timely work and follow-through, though one critical failure (water main break recurring twice) and one temporary fix lower this score. Technical expertise is well-documented across 15 reviews highlighting skill and problem-solving ability. However, pricing is a significant weakness: two detailed complaints about overcharging and lack of transparent quotes before work begins, combined with positive mentions of fair pricing, create substantial concern. The contractor excels in soft skills but has documented pricing transparency and durability issues that warrant caution.

• PRICING CONCERN: Two detailed, credible complaints about overcharging (Review 2024-05-09: $385 vs $150 for similar work; Review 2023-08-21: quoted price was double reasonable cost). Both cite lack of upfront communication about costs. This contradicts positive pricing mentions and suggests inconsistent pricing practices.
• QUALITY DURABILITY ISSUE: Review 2024-07-20 reports water main break repair failed twice within one month, with technician stating uncertainty about root cause. This is a critical project completion failure despite initial positive response.
• TEMPORARY FIX: Review 2023-08-04 states 'piping problem was temporarily fixed,' suggesting incomplete resolution.
• RECENCY DISTRIBUTION: Most reviews (28 of 38) are from 2023-2024, with strong concentration in late 2023 and early 2024. Two most negative reviews are from mid-2024, indicating recent pricing/quality issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews 2024-01-27 and 2024-01-23 are nearly identical in wording and structure (both reference Angi's list, national company comparison, toilet/drain backup, 1-hour response, 'AMAZING', 'highly skilled', 'reasonably priced'). This suggests possible duplicate submission or fabrication. Confidence in pricing dimension reduced accordingly.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by numerous consistent reviews, the pricing dimension is undermined by credible complaints and suspected duplicate reviews, and project completion is compromised by documented failures. The score reflects genuine strengths in customer service and technical skill, but the contractor has clear vulnerabilities in pricing transparency and work durability that are not fully captured in the overall score.

DeWitt Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and communication across 16 reviews. Project completion is solid with 13 mentions showing jobs finished promptly and thoroughly, though one significant 2015 sewer pump installation failure (undersized pump, double the quoted cost) creates a notable blemish. Experience is well-regarded with 9 mentions of technical skill and problem-solving, supported by references to 12+ years in the field. Pricing receives mixed signals: most reviews cite reasonable/fair pricing, but the 2015 sewer pump case reveals a major cost overrun and quality failure that substantially impacts confidence in pricing transparency. Recency favors the business—most recent reviews (2023-2024) are uniformly positive, while older negative reviews (2015, 2020, 2021) suggest either past issues or data quality problems.

• Three reviews with minimal or no substantive content (empty review, 'unknown', 'Review all comments') reduce usable data reliability.
• One 1-star review from 2020 with only 'Review all comments' provides no actionable feedback and appears to be spam or incomplete submission.
• Significant negative review from 2015 (3-star) documents a major project failure: undersized sewer pump installed, cost doubled from estimate ($500-600 quoted vs ~$1200 final), required two extra service calls. This contradicts the otherwise consistent positive narrative and suggests either past quality control issues or a learning curve early in business.
• One 1-star review from 2015 ('DO NOT USE DEMPSY PLUMBING') uses different business name spelling ('Dempsy' vs 'DeWitt') and may refer to a different entity or be a data entry error; treated as valid negative feedback but flagged for name discrepancy.
• One 5-star review from 2021 mentions 'Dempsey Pumbling' (different spelling again) with generic praise; possible data quality issue or name variation.
• Most recent reviews (2023-2024, 8 reviews) are uniformly 5-star with detailed, specific praise; older reviews (2011-2016) show more variance. This pattern is normal for improving businesses but warrants noting that recent score is more reliable than historical average.
• No reviews mention warranty/guarantee details except one 2013 review stating 'guarantee their work'—limited evidence on follow-through commitments.

This WW Score of 82.1 is moderately reliable and should be trusted with caution. Recent performance (2023-2024) is excellent and well-documented, but a significant 2015 project failure involving cost overruns and quality issues creates legitimate concern about pricing transparency and technical judgment. The score reflects strong professionalism and responsiveness, but the pricing dimension is weakened by limited mentions and one major documented failure. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates and ask specifically about the sewer pump incident before committing to large projects.