Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenwood, Indiana

Dixon Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most engagements, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and workmanship quality. However, the score is significantly impacted by two severe negative experiences involving project abandonment and unresponsive customer service, plus one recent 2024 review documenting incomplete restoration work. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though one customer was overcharged for parts. The company shows strong performance on routine jobs but critical failures on complex projects and follow-through accountability.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2015 and 2013) document serious project abandonment, non-responsiveness, and financial disputes. The 2015 review describes a 6-week communication blackout and rude customer service; the 2013 review alleges advance payment fraud ($760 collected, pump never installed, plumber disappeared).
• RECENT CONCERN: 2024-01-18 review reports incomplete drywall restoration after ceiling cutouts for pipe repair, with customer expressing concern about potential mold and lack of follow-up response.
• RECENCY BIAS: 26 of 30 reviews are from 2008-2016 (8+ years old). Only 1 review from past 12 months, limiting ability to assess current service quality.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Multiple reviews use minimal detail ('They did an excellent job,' 'It went well,' 'Very professional') without specifics, though this is balanced by several detailed positive reviews with concrete examples.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between routine job excellence and complex project failures suggests inconsistent quality control or accountability depending on project scope and personnel.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 82.1 reflects predominantly positive historical feedback, the presence of two severe project failures involving financial disputes and abandonment, combined with a recent incomplete work complaint and heavily outdated review base (87% older than 8 years), indicates the current reliability of this contractor is uncertain. Recommend requesting recent references and written project completion guarantees before engaging.

Duncan Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual service, courteous technicians, and responsive office staff across 142 mentions. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 89 reviews, with technicians frequently praised for knowledge and skill. Project completion is solid at 82.5, though some reviews mention incomplete follow-ups or callbacks not honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0 score), with 47 explicit mentions of high costs, aggressive task-based billing, and customer complaints about overcharging relative to market rates. The company's strength in service quality is substantially offset by widespread pricing concerns.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) explicitly cite excessive pricing, with customers reporting Duncan's quotes being 2-5x higher than competitors for identical work. This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• TASK-BASED BILLING CONCERN: Several detailed reviews describe aggressive 'per-task' pricing model that appears to inflate costs significantly. One customer paid $870/hour equivalent for a 30-minute diagnostic; another paid $1,252 for one hour of work.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While most reviews are highly positive, a subset (approximately 8-10 reviews) describe poor diagnostics, incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, or failure to identify root causes on first visit.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), showing recent strong performance. However, pricing complaints appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting this is a structural business practice rather than a recent issue.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: While most reviews contain specific details and varied language, a small cluster of 3-4 reviews from 2025-06 use nearly identical phrasing ('Frank is the best,' 'amazing job,' 'excellent work'). However, the vast majority of reviews show authentic variation and specificity, so overall fake review risk is LOW.
• CALLBACK/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: At least 3-4 reviews mention difficulty reaching the company for follow-up service or unresolved issues after initial visit, suggesting potential project completion gaps in specific cases.

This WW Score of 81.2 is highly reliable given the large sample size (227 reviews) and consistent data across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical trade-off: Duncan Plumbing excels in professionalism and expertise but is widely perceived as significantly overpriced relative to competitors. Customers should expect excellent service quality but should obtain multiple quotes and be prepared for costs substantially above market rates. The HIGH overall confidence reflects robust data, but prospective customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily in their decision-making.

Bell Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising technicians for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs. Project completion scores are also solid, with the majority of reviewers confirming jobs were finished correctly and in a timely manner, though a small number of notable exceptions — including a no-call no-show, toilets not secured correctly requiring a callback, a wall left open after faucet work, and a disputed sewer job with billing irregularities — prevent a higher score. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a meaningful margin: while many reviewers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, multiple 1-star reviews cite significant sticker shock, a $321 charge for a 15-minute washer replacement, a sewer job priced over $11,000 more than a competitor, and a mid-job price escalation from $250 to $600 with no clear justification. The pricing score reflects this genuine split in customer experience rather than defaulting to the majority positive sentiment.

• 29 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These reviews provide zero usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent review count and average star rating.
• Several reviews from July 30, 2024 appear on the same date with very similar enthusiastic phrasing about the same technician (Freddy), which warrants mild suspicion of coordinated or solicited reviews, though they are not identical.
• One review (2023-03-28) describes a significantly different and negative experience involving unprofessional conduct, price escalation, and berating of the customer — this is a serious outlier that was fully weighted in pricing and professionalism scoring.
• One review (2024-04-02) describes a sewer replacement job priced over $11,000 more than a competitor, disputed charges for work not performed, and property damage not remedied — this was fully weighted in pricing and project completion scoring.
• One review (2024-05-21) describes toilets not secured correctly requiring a callback, a wall left open, and plastic faucets installed without consent — this was fully weighted in project completion and experience scoring.
• One review (2024-11-04) describes a technician who refused to inspect the water heater and immediately recommended full replacement — this was weighted in experience scoring as a negative signal.
• One review (2024-10-22) describes a no-call no-show on a scheduled appointment with no follow-up — this was fully weighted in professionalism and project completion scoring.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 12 months (many from 2019–2022), and the business appears to have changed staffing and scale over time. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are more mixed on pricing than older reviews, suggesting possible pricing drift upward.
• The 1-star review from 2022-12-21 describes being ignored after an overpriced initial visit and only receiving a response after threatening a negative review — this was weighted in professionalism scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing specifically, as there is a genuine and documented pattern of pricing complaints that is partially masked by the high volume of positive reviews.

Indiana Plumbing and Drain demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, cleanliness, and courteous service. Project completion is evidenced by successful problem-solving and timely work. Pricing is noted as fair and competitive, with one review highlighting significantly lower costs than competitors. Technical expertise is reflected in problem-solving ability and work guarantees. However, the analysis is limited by a small sample size (5 reviews) and notably old review dates, with most reviews from 2007–2015.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All 5 reviews are from 2007–2015 (9–17 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality or whether standards have changed.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews analyzed; confidence in overall score is inherently limited.
• GENERIC FIRST REVIEW: One review contains only a period (.) with no substantive content; excluded from analysis.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical. This may reflect only satisfied customers leaving reviews or a curated sample.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size, complete absence of recent reviews, and lack of any critical feedback that would normally validate scoring accuracy.

This contractor has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians by name for being knowledgeable, courteous, and efficient. However, pricing is a persistent and significant concern across a substantial portion of reviews spanning multiple years, with numerous customers explicitly describing charges as excessive, surprising, or not disclosed upfront — this materially drags the pricing score down. Professionalism is mixed: while most field technicians receive strong marks, there are multiple serious incidents involving rude or dismissive staff (including a technician using a slur, a technician calling a customer a derogatory name, and repeated scheduling failures with no-shows and poor communication from office staff). Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a handful of reviews cite incomplete work, a provider-caused pipe break that was not remedied, and a case where the job was declared done but left the customer with only partial plumbing function. Experience scores well overall, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, though a few reviews describe misdiagnosis or unnecessary upselling of work that a competitor later resolved more simply.

• One review (2022-07-05, 5-star) appears to be a self-promotional post written in the voice of the company ('At Roby's Plumbing, we understand...') rather than a genuine customer review. This has been excluded from scoring.
• Multiple reviews are blank (no text, only a star rating) — 8 such reviews were identified. These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A 1-star review (2025-05-19) is entirely about a radio advertisement and has no bearing on actual service quality. It was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• Serious professionalism incidents noted: one technician reportedly called a customer a 'Pussy' in their home (2023-04-19); a racial slur was printed on an estimate and management responded dismissively (2012-11-14); a technician named Dave was described as rude and making unsupported diagnoses (2017-10-27); office staff hung up on a customer and sent an unapproved technician (2020-06-26).
• Pricing complaints are numerous and span the full review history (2015–2025), suggesting a systemic pattern of high or non-transparent pricing rather than isolated incidents. Multiple reviewers cite effective hourly rates of $200–$350+/hour.
• Scheduling and communication failures appear in multiple reviews: repeated no-shows and rescheduling (2025-04-10), a 4-hour wait with no follow-through (2016-04-18), and a plumber arriving almost two hours late and being rude (2020-02-05).
• One review (2019-08-02) describes the company declaring a job impossible and referring the customer elsewhere, only for a competitor to resolve it immediately for a comparable price — suggesting possible competence gaps or selective job avoidance.
• One review (2016-10-11) alleges a significant discrepancy between estimated and actual hours billed, raising transparency concerns.
• Review history spans from 2012 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring, though patterns across eras were noted for context. The majority of recent (2024–2025) reviews are more positive, suggesting possible improvement in service quality over time.
• No clear fake review pattern detected beyond the one self-promotional post. Most reviews contain specific details, named technicians, and varied language consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of detailed, specific reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence, though consumers should weigh the recurring and well-documented pricing transparency concerns and the serious professionalism incidents seriously before engaging this contractor.

Cook Plumbing has a strong long-term reputation for professionalism, with many reviewers praising punctuality, communication, cleanup habits, and courteous behavior across decades of reviews. Pricing is generally regarded as fair to reasonable, with multiple explicit mentions of good value, though one reviewer noted slight expense and another flagged cheap fixture materials. Project completion scores are tempered by two notable negative reviews: one describing repeated failed visits and an abandoned toilet flange repair, and another detailing a serious failure to test water pressure over 1.5 years as a builder's plumber, resulting in dangerously high pressure going undetected. Experience scores reflect generally solid workmanship praised by long-term customers, offset by the quality control failures noted in the negative reviews. The overall score is moderated by the age of the review set, with the vast majority of reviews predating 2018.

• 6 reviews contain no usable text (blank '.', 'unknown', or single generic sentences with no dimension-specific detail) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The most recent review is from 2017. The majority of reviews are more than 7 years old, with many dating back to the early 2000s. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of this score for current performance assessment.
• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'He did a good job!', 'turned out great', 'Bob did a great job.') with no specifics. While not conclusively fake, these add limited scoring value and were treated conservatively.
• Two substantive negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) describe serious failures: an abandoned repair job with no follow-through, and a systemic failure to test water pressure during a builder installation. These are weighted meaningfully against otherwise positive reviews.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present. This score should not be used as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality without supplemental recent data.

This WW Score is based on a moderately large review set but is significantly limited by the age of the data — all reviews are at least 7 years old — which substantially reduces confidence in how accurately this score reflects the contractor's current performance.