Find Nearby Plumbers In Evansville, Indiana

ABC Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with the majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) describing prompt, professional, and courteous technicians by name, suggesting a strong core team. Pricing is frequently praised as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting ABC came in significantly lower than competitors. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range — describe serious failures including abandoned jobs, no-shows, poor communication between office and field staff, billing disputes, work that failed shortly after completion, and in a few cases allegations of dishonest or predatory behavior. Project completion is the most consistently flagged concern in negative reviews, with multiple customers reporting work left unfinished or callbacks ignored. The score is moderated downward from what the volume of 5-star reviews might suggest, because the negative reviews contain specific, credible, and recurring patterns of failure that cannot be dismissed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or word-for-word duplicate reviews were found (e.g., the Jovi/quick/reasonable review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Tammy/Jason/external repairs review appearing on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; the Dana/Matthew/bathroom sink review appearing twice on 2025-02-06). This pattern is consistent with review manipulation or accidental double-posting and reduces confidence in the authenticity of some 5-star reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 2 reviews appear to be for unrelated businesses or contain no plumbing-related content (e.g., 'LIFT MARKETING Website Design Agency' rated 2 stars on 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02; a review about a fast food experience on 2018-12-15; a review referencing 'Pipe Wrench Plumbing' on 2006-08-15). These were excluded from scoring.
• REVIEWS WITH NO TEXT: Multiple reviews contained only a star rating and no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple 1-star reviews across different time periods describe abandoned work, no-shows, billing for incomplete service, poor office-to-field communication, and in one case an allegation of work that caused $15,000–$20,000 in foundation damage. These are specific and credible and were weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of highly positive reviews are concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement in service quality, a more active review solicitation strategy, or both. Older reviews (2013–2021) show a more mixed picture. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily per Rule 6.
• MULTI-ENTITY RISK: The review corpus appears to aggregate reviews from multiple ABC Plumbing locations or franchises across different states (Texas, California, New York, Kentucky, etc.). Scores may reflect the performance of more than one distinct business operating under the same name, which limits the reliability of the composite WW Score for any single location.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, irrelevant reviews mixed into the dataset, multi-location aggregation risk, and a recurring pattern of credible negative experiences that suggest the 5-star majority does not fully represent all customer outcomes.

Bayer's Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across the majority of reviews, with many customers praising friendly, knowledgeable technicians and same-day or next-day service. However, pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers across different years describe unexpected charges, lack of upfront estimates, billing for travel time on top of trip fees, and final invoices far exceeding expectations — pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed quickly and thoroughly, there are credible accounts of incomplete work, a months-long saga requiring re-dos, a broken drain cleaner head left in a line, and at least one instance where a customer was charged without the problem being resolved. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable technicians who explained issues and offered preventative advice, though a few reviews describe poor problem diagnosis and substandard workmanship. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and technical skill but meaningful and recurring concerns around pricing transparency and job completion reliability.

• 4 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (5-star, 2023) consists entirely of hyperbolic all-caps praise with zero specifics ('ABOVE top tier', 'ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY THE BEST'). This pattern is consistent with a potentially inauthentic review and was weighted minimally.
• One review appears to be a correction post ('That should be a 5 star. I've never rated anything before sorry.') with no substantive content and was excluded from scoring.
• Several negative reviews are older than 5 years (2014, 2016, 2018) and were given reduced weight per recency rules, though they were not excluded entirely as they establish a pattern of recurring pricing and communication complaints.
• The 1-star review from 2023-11-08 describing a 3-month project saga with cost escalation from $3,500 to $6,000, incomplete work, and no communication is a detailed, credible negative account and was weighted heavily in project completion and pricing scores.
• The updated 1-star review (originally 11/14/23, updated 12/4/23) shows a billing dispute that was partially resolved by management follow-up — this was treated as a mixed signal for both project completion and professionalism.
• Pricing complaints span multiple years (2014, 2016, 2023, 2024) and multiple reviewers independently describing similar issues (unexpected itemized charges, billing for shop travel time, no upfront estimates). This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• The 1-star review from 2018 citing three failed callback attempts over a month is a standalone communication failure but aligns with the broader pattern of inconsistent responsiveness noted in other negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on 46 reviews with usable content spanning 2014–2025, with a strong concentration of recent reviews (2023–2025), giving the score reasonable reliability — however, the recurring and independently corroborated pricing complaints and project completion failures across multiple years mean prospective customers should treat the pricing and project completion scores as genuine risk areas rather than outliers.

Affordable Home Services has a strong base of satisfied customers who frequently praise the quality of workmanship, professionalism of Jim and his team, and their ability to complete complex projects on time and on budget — including one remarkable case during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a recurring and serious pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the score: multiple reviewers report being completely ghosted after estimates were promised, no-shows for scheduled appointments, and in at least two cases, post-project abandonment where the contractor took payment and then became unreachable for follow-up work or warranty issues. Pricing is a mixed picture — several reviewers found prices fair or even lower than competitors, while others explicitly called the quotes excessive or double the competition. The roof quality complaint from 2022, citing outdated materials and poor installation on a 3.5-year-old roof, is a serious workmanship red flag that weighs heavily on the project completion and experience scores. Overall, the contractor appears capable of excellent work when fully engaged, but the inconsistency in responsiveness, follow-through, and post-job accountability is a significant and documented concern.

• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE PATTERN: At least 7 reviews explicitly describe being promised a quote or callback and receiving nothing — this is a consistent and serious operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• POST-PROJECT ABANDONMENT: Two reviews (2021 and 2022) describe contractors taking payment and then becoming completely unresponsive to follow-up requests, unfinished work, and warranty claims.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: The 2022 review describes a flat roof installed in 2018 that failed within 3.5 years, with two independent contractors citing outdated and poorly installed materials. This is a significant quality red flag.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2014, 2018, 2019, 2020) describe scheduled appointments where the contractor simply never showed up and never called.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from 2011 to 2022. The most recent reviews (2021-2022) are predominantly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Older positive reviews may not reflect current performance.
• GENERIC REVIEWS NOTED: Several reviews contain only single words or phrases ('unknown', 'very smooth', 'Excellently', '.') with 5-star ratings and no substantive detail. These have been excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data and may inflate the star average.
• POSSIBLE SCOPE MISMATCH: At least two reviews appear to describe different contractors entirely (a cleaning service provider named Cari, and a handyman named Bobby serving Monmouth County). These reviews were excluded from scoring as they do not appear to relate to Affordable Home Services.
• SUBCONTRACTOR TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One detailed negative review (2014) notes the homeowner was unaware work would be subcontracted out, leading to significant communication breakdowns and quality control problems.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its mention counts, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the clear decline in service quality suggested by recent reviews, the serious post-project abandonment complaints, and the documented pattern of no-shows and ghosting that represents a systemic — not occasional — operational problem.

Brackett receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions from all seven reviewers. Professionalism is the most frequently and enthusiastically cited strength, with multiple reviewers highlighting courteous staff, fast response times, and friendly technicians. Pricing is described as reasonable or below estimate in five reviews, though one reviewer humorously declined to directly assess value, introducing slight ambiguity. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting timely arrivals, same-day completions, and thorough follow-through even on complex jobs like a whole-house generator install. Experience and technical knowledge are affirmed by multiple reviewers who noted technicians diagnosing issues quickly and explaining problems clearly.

• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details, named technicians, and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• 5 of 7 reviews are older than 12 months as of 2025; only 2 reviews (2023) fall within the past 24 months and none within the past 12 months. Recency is limited and current performance cannot be fully confirmed.
• Review volume is low (7 total), which limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as directionally positive but not definitively established.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity and variety of the reviews, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size, all-5-star rating pattern, and the fact that no reviews originate from the past 12 months.

Tom Wilhite Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion across all three reviews, with fast response times, courteous service, and successful job completion. Technical skill and experience are evident from complex work (whole-house PEX replacement, sewer line clearing). However, a significant pricing concern emerges from the 2019 review where the final bill ($1950) substantially exceeded the quoted price ($1600) due to undisclosed equipment rental fees, directly contradicting the phone quote assurance. This pricing transparency issue substantially lowers the overall score despite otherwise positive feedback.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: 2019 review documents a $350 overcharge (22% above quoted price) due to equipment rental fees not disclosed in initial phone quote. Customer explicitly stated they would not use the company again.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The negative pricing review is from March 2019 (nearly 5 years old), while the two positive reviews are from 2023 and 2024. Cannot determine if pricing practices have improved.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is constrained by small dataset.
• PRICING DATA LIMITED: Only 2 mentions of pricing across 3 reviews. Confidence in pricing score is limited.

This WW Score of 79.2 should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and the significant time gap between the negative pricing incident (2019) and recent positive reviews (2023-2024). The score reflects strong technical execution and professionalism but is materially impacted by documented pricing transparency failures. Additional recent reviews would substantially improve confidence in this assessment.

Jim Cody demonstrates strong technical expertise and craftsmanship, with consistently positive feedback on work quality and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a persistent pattern of poor communication and unreliability: multiple reviews document no-shows, missed callbacks, failure to follow up on quotes, and scheduling inconsistency. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and transparent. Project completion shows mixed results, with several instances of abandoned follow-up work and unfinished commitments. The contractor excels when actively engaged but struggles with accountability and responsiveness.

• CRITICAL PATTERN: At least 5 reviews explicitly document no-shows, missed callbacks, or failure to follow up on quotes (2011-08-18, 2011-11-03, 2015-08-29, 2008-11-17, and 2013-04-02). This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2007-2015 (10+ years old). Only 1 review from 2018 and 1 from 2017. Current reliability cannot be confidently assessed.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between reviews praising reliability and punctuality (2011-07-29, 2010-10-28) and those documenting chronic no-shows and poor communication. Suggests either significant service degradation over time or highly variable performance.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RISK: Review from 2016-12-19 documents incomplete work (wrong shutter size ordered, promised special order and installation never delivered despite follow-up contact). This indicates follow-through failures on complex projects.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 10+ years old) and a documented pattern of communication and reliability failures that directly contradict the high technical quality ratings; the WW Score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service standards.