Find Nearby Plumbers In Orlando, Florida

RJ Kielty Plumbing receives strong and consistent praise for professionalism and technical knowledge, with numerous reviewers specifically naming technicians like Luis, Will Martinez, Rafael, Nick, and others as knowledgeable, courteous, and thorough. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by two notable negative reviews: one describing a failed repair that required a callback and a second technician to fix, and another alleging the company refused to honor warranty work after a fired technician performed substandard repairs. Pricing is the weakest dimension — while one reviewer praised fair and reasonable pricing, two negative reviews explicitly describe price inflation, undisclosed charges, and a $1,000 quote for two toilet replacements, which significantly drags this score down. Experience scores are high overall, supported by detailed accounts of skilled troubleshooting and efficient work, though the presence of at least two reviews describing beginner-level or failed workmanship prevents a top-tier score.

• 16 out of 58 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring. A high proportion of blank reviews (28%) is unusual and may indicate review solicitation practices that inflate star averages without substantive feedback.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2016–2019 range) and may not reflect current service quality. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more numerous and were weighted more heavily.
• Some reviews use very brief or vague language ('fantastic', 'Buena experiencia', 'great technicians') with no specifics, which limits their scoring utility. These were not counted toward dimension mentions.
• The 1-star review from 2025-06-08 ('Malos en todo nada recomendable') provides no detail and could not be scored dimensionally, but its recency is noted as a concern.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but the volume of blank 5-star reviews warrants caution when interpreting the raw star average.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, but is tempered by a significant number of content-free reviews, two credible negative reviews describing pricing abuse and warranty refusal, and a review history spanning 8+ years that may mask changes in service quality over time.

Bowen Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism, project completion, and experience all well-represented across a large review base spanning nearly a decade. Punctuality and responsiveness are among the most frequently praised traits, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals and quick response times. Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished efficiently and thoroughly, including going above and beyond the original scope. Pricing is generally described as reasonable or fair, though one reviewer explicitly complained of being charged $225 for a 15-minute job, which tempers the pricing score. Two separate reviews — one from 2018 and one from 2019 — describe the same technician (Tony) as rude, unprofessional, and dismissive of complaints, which meaningfully reduces the professionalism score from what would otherwise be near-perfect.

• Two reviews (2018-09-21 and 2019-06-11) describe nearly identical negative experiences with Tony — dirty toilet water splashed on floors, unsanitary tool handling on counters, and rude behavior when complaints were raised. The similarity in detail across two separate reviews increases credibility of these complaints and they are weighted accordingly.
• One review (2018-04-12) explicitly flags overpricing for a minor drain snaking job at $225 for 15 minutes, which is a concrete pricing concern and was factored into the pricing score.
• Several reviews are older than 5 years (2014–2017), and a few are older than 1 year relative to the most recent review date. Per recency rules, more recent reviews (2022–2024) were weighted more heavily, though the older reviews were still included as supporting data.
• Multiple reviews reference different technicians by name (Tony, James, Mike, Michael), suggesting a small team rather than a single operator. Positive and negative experiences appear tied to specific individuals, which may mean quality is inconsistent depending on who is dispatched.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, and include genuine negative reviews, which increases overall credibility of the review set.

This WW Score is based on 32 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable, though users should note that two credible negative professionalism complaints and one explicit pricing complaint prevent a higher score, and the multi-technician nature of the business means individual experience may vary.

Complete Pro Solutions receives broadly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently praise punctuality, communication, courtesy, and follow-through. Pricing is mentioned favorably in several reviews, with references to competitive rates, fair pricing, and even extra work done at no charge. Project completion scores are tempered by one notable negative review (1-star, dated 2019) in which the contractor failed to show for two confirmed appointments and avoided calls — a serious reliability concern that cannot be ignored. Experience and technical knowledge are praised across multiple reviews, with specific mentions of accurate diagnosis, camera inspections, and thorough explanations. Scores are modestly conservative due to the presence of the no-show complaint, the high volume of undated reviews, and patterns consistent with generic praise that reduce overall confidence.

• 13 out of 20 reviews have no date — recency cannot be assessed for these reviews, which significantly limits the ability to evaluate current service quality.
• One 1-star review (2019-01-15) describes a serious reliability failure: two missed confirmed appointments and the contractor avoiding calls. This directly contradicts the professionalism and project completion claims in positive reviews.
• Several undated reviews use very similar phrasing ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'fast,' 'honest') with little specific detail, raising a moderate concern about potential generic or coached reviews. No strong evidence of outright fake reviews, but the pattern warrants caution.
• The oldest dated reviews (2016, 2019, 2020, 2022) may not reflect current business practices. Only two reviews are from 2023–2024, limiting confidence in recency-weighted scoring.
• High volume of 5-star ratings with minimal critical feedback outside the single 1-star review may indicate review solicitation bias.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for general trend assessment, but should be interpreted cautiously given that the majority of reviews are undated, only one negative review exists to balance an otherwise uniformly positive set, and some reviews lack the specificity needed to fully validate dimension scores.

G & S Plumbing (Gary Clark) demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 8 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous demeanor, and communication. Project completion is solid with 7 mentions of timely work, thorough problem-solving, and cleanup. Experience is well-supported by 5 mentions of quality workmanship and technical skill, including a 20-year customer relationship. Pricing receives moderate support (4 mentions) with customers noting fair, transparent, and reasonable rates. However, the dataset is significantly aged—all reviews are from 2008–2012, with no recent data to confirm current operations or standards.

• CRITICAL: One review (2009-10-06) states 'Gone out of business' with 1.0 rating. This contradicts all other positive reviews and suggests the business may no longer be operating. This review was excluded from scoring but raises serious questions about current availability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All 10 reviews are from 2008–2012 (12–16 years old). No reviews from the past 5 years. Current service quality, responsiveness, and operational status cannot be verified from this data.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('called back promptly,' 'arrived on time,' 'cleaned up after themselves'). While this could reflect consistent service, the repetitive language across 4+ reviews warrants caution. However, the specificity in some reviews (20-year relationship, root clearing, toilet flappers, gas line capping) suggests genuine experiences rather than fabricated praise.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 9 usable reviews is a small dataset. Confidence in the overall score is limited by volume.

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated with caution due to severe recency issues—all data is 12+ years old and one review indicates the business may be defunct. The score reflects strong historical performance, but cannot reliably predict current service quality or availability. Verification of current operations is strongly recommended before engaging this contractor.

Certified Leak Detection, primarily represented by Robert/Bob, receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is a standout theme, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, responsiveness to callbacks, and a thorough methodical approach. Pricing is noted favorably in five reviews, with customers describing costs as affordable, fair, and less than feared — one reviewer even noted a waived initial quote. Project completion scores highly as well, with reviewers emphasizing persistence through difficult multi-visit diagnoses and full resolution of long-standing problems. Experience is well-evidenced through descriptions of systematic pressure testing, root-cause identification, and successful repairs where other companies had failed. The primary caveat is that the total review pool is small (7 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, limiting the reliability of the score.

• Small review pool (7 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as directionally useful but not statistically robust.
• Review dates span from 2014 to 2023 — the majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation date, and only 2 reviews fall within the past 12–24 months. Recency weighting is a concern.
• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity of perfect ratings warrants mild caution.
• No fake review pattern detected — reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied narrative styles, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to the small and aging review sample; the scores are directionally trustworthy but should be supplemented with more recent customer references before making a high-stakes hiring decision.

CV Plumbing (Chris) earns strong marks across most dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising his punctuality, responsiveness, friendly demeanor, fair pricing, and solid technical skill on routine plumbing jobs. However, a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows, ghosting, and communication blackouts — documented across at least 6 separate reviews spanning 2021 through 2024 — significantly drags down the project completion score. One detailed 1-star review also raises credible concerns about substandard workmanship on a larger remodel job, including code violations and abandoned work. The pricing dimension is a genuine strength, with many reviewers explicitly noting competitive quotes and no hidden charges. Overall, Chris appears reliable and skilled for small, straightforward jobs but carries meaningful risk for larger or more complex projects requiring sustained follow-through.

• SERIOUS RELIABILITY CONCERN: At least 6 reviews (dated 2021–2024) independently describe Chris no-showing confirmed appointments and then going completely silent — no callbacks, full voicemail, no Yelp/text/email response. This is a documented behavioral pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN ON LARGE JOBS: One detailed 1-star review (2021-09-16) describes multiple code violations on a remodel project — incorrect pipe burial depth, wrong pipe sizing, wrong materials for venting, and incorrect sewage pump installation — corroborated by subsequent plumbers. Chris allegedly responded with angry texts and then disappeared again.
• VOLUME IMBALANCE: The review set is heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings (approximately 70 out of 81), but the negative reviews are substantive, specific, and credible. This imbalance should not be interpreted as near-universal satisfaction.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both a strong positive (July 2023) and a no-show complaint (June 2023) and a pricing concern (May 2024), suggesting the reliability issues have persisted into recent years and have not been resolved.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A subset of 5-star reviews from April–May 2021 are very brief, generic, and clustered tightly in time (e.g., 'Amazing plumber with knowledge of plumbing that I haven't seen before. Highly recommended.' with no specifics). These may be genuine early-business reviews but warrant mild caution. No definitive fake review pattern confirmed, but confidence is slightly reduced for that cluster.
• SCOPE LIMITATION: Positive reviews are overwhelmingly for small, single-visit jobs (drain clogs, faucet installs, toilet replacements). Negative reviews cluster around multi-visit or larger scope work. Prospective customers should weight this distinction carefully.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (81 reviews) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should treat the project completion score as the most critical signal — the no-show and ghosting pattern is well-documented, recent, and represents a genuine operational risk, particularly for jobs requiring more than a single visit.