Find Nearby Plumbers In Hammond, Indiana

Flo-Maxx demonstrates strong professionalism with courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and arrive promptly in most cases. Technical expertise is consistently praised across reviews, with skilled problem-solving and quality workmanship. Project completion is generally reliable, though some customers experienced incomplete diagnostics or follow-up issues. Pricing receives moderate marks—while many customers report fair and competitive rates, several negative reviews highlight aggressive upselling tactics and unclear cost structures, particularly around camera inspections and major repairs. The company's strength lies in technician quality and customer service; weaknesses center on pricing transparency and diagnostic accuracy.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (3 negative reviews from 2017-2021) report aggressive upselling, unclear diagnostic processes, and high-pressure sales tactics for expensive repairs (e.g., $760 power jetting, $4,500 line replacement) without clear justification. This pattern suggests potential business practice issues.
• INCOMPLETE SERVICE: Two 1-star reviews explicitly mention incomplete work—one customer was charged for a camera inspection that failed to provide answers, another was charged $65 for a shower repair that was never completed.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2023, while negative reviews cluster in 2017-2021. Recent reviews (past 2 years) are predominantly 5-star, which may indicate improved practices or potential review filtering.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: While most reviews praise professionalism, one 1-star review from 2021 reports rescheduling issues and no-show behavior, and another mentions conflict between technician and customer.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'great job,' 'professional') with minimal specific detail, though this is not conclusive of fake reviews given the legitimate positive experiences described in detailed reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 is moderately reliable and should be trusted with caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in most engagements, the recurring pattern of pricing disputes, incomplete diagnostics, and aggressive upselling in multiple independent reviews suggests systemic issues that offset technical strengths. Customers should request detailed written estimates and diagnostic explanations before authorizing major repairs.

Plumbco earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an enormous volume of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism is consistently praised — punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness appear in the vast majority of positive reviews — but is tempered by a handful of credible negative reviews citing rudeness, no-shows, and poor dispatcher conduct. Pricing scores moderately well: many reviewers explicitly call out fair, transparent, and reasonable pricing, while a meaningful minority describe the company as expensive, note upselling, or report being refused phone quotes. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a single visit, though a small number of reviews describe failed repairs, warranty refusals, and abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is the highest-scoring dimension, with dozens of reviewers specifically praising technical knowledge, creative problem-solving, and the ability to succeed where other plumbers failed.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates. Examples include the 'Top notch 5 Stars / sweat welded' review (2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05), the 'Francisco and his crew' review (2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04), the 'Plumbco provides great service / Chris was professional' review (2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04), the 'On time, informative, no mess' review (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03), the 'Derrick came and replaced hot water heater' review (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03), the 'Plumbco does a great job / Chris and Hunter' review (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03), the 'Plumbco is always there when we need them' review (2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03), the 'Reached out to Arie at 3am on a weekend due to a burst pipe' review (2024-12-08 and 2024-11-08), the 'Arie came to address several issues' review (2024-11-08 and 2024-10-23), the 'Ari was willing to help me over the phone' review (2024-10-09 and 2024-09-18), and multiple Arie Glasman reviews from 2024-06-06 that appear to be re-posts of reviews from 2023 and 2022. This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or bulk re-posting, which artificially inflates review count and recency signals.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — JUNE 2025 CLUSTER: Seven reviews posted between 2025-06-03 and 2025-06-08 are exact duplicates of each other in pairs, suggesting coordinated or automated re-posting. Confidence in the recency signal of this cluster is LOW.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — JUNE 2024 CLUSTER: A large cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-06 contains many reviews that are identical or near-identical to reviews posted in 2023, 2022, and 2021 under the same or similar reviewer language. This cluster appears to be a bulk re-upload of older reviews, not genuine new customer experiences.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: Several 1-star reviews contain specific, detailed, and credible complaints including: warranty refusal and hang-ups on customers (2024-06-06), failed repairs and overcharging (2024-03-20), no-show appointments with no callback (2021-07-22), rude owner behavior and threatening a reviewer's employer (2019-01-10), a misdiagnosis that would have cost $9,000 vs. a $350 actual fix (2015-01-19), a failed pipe winterization job resulting in burst pipes and no refund (2018-04-29), and a pricing dispute with aggressive owner follow-up (2015-01-31). These are not generic complaints and meaningfully reduce confidence in the professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: After removing confirmed duplicate reviews, the genuine unique review volume from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) is substantially lower than the raw count suggests. The WW Score is primarily driven by reviews from 2021–2024, which remain within a reasonable recency window but should be noted.
• OWNER RESPONSE BEHAVIOR: Multiple negative reviewers reference aggressive, threatening, or dismissive responses from the owner (Gary Bloch / Arie Glasman), including threats to contact employers and public accusations against reviewers. This is a professionalism flag that is not captured in the star ratings alone.
• MULTI-LOCATION OR MULTI-OPERATOR AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple distinct named plumbers (Arie Glasman, Gary Bloch, JD, Derek, Francisco, Josh, Chris, Omar, Brandon, etc.) and appear to span at least two distinct geographic markets (Houston, TX area and Los Angeles, CA area). It is possible these reviews represent more than one business operating under the Plumbco name, which would make the aggregate score less meaningful for any single location.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH data volume confidence due to the large number of reviews, but overall trustworthiness is meaningfully reduced by confirmed duplicate review patterns suggesting manipulation, credible negative reviews describing serious service failures and owner misconduct, and ambiguity about whether reviews represent a single business entity or multiple operators across different markets — consumers should weight recent, unique, and verified reviews more heavily than this aggregate score.

Steel Plumbing & Drain Experts demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2. The company excels in professionalism (86.5) and project completion (84.0), with consistently praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous technicians across 52 and 48 mentions respectively. Technical expertise is solid (85.0 across 38 mentions), with customers noting knowledgeable staff and effective problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness (68.0 across 12 mentions), with multiple customers reporting significantly higher costs than competitors for identical work, lack of itemized quotes, and instances of overcharging. Several serious negative reviews document misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary $5,000+ recommendations, poor cleanup practices, and unresponsive management to complaints. These issues prevent a higher score despite predominantly positive feedback.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2017-2023) document pricing significantly above market rate. One customer paid $650 vs. competitor quote of $300 for same work; another paid $1,800 for hydro jetting vs. competitor range of $750-$950. Pattern suggests systematic overpricing.
• MISDIAGNOSIS & ACCOUNTABILITY: Two identical detailed reviews (2018-06-11 and 2017-10-09, likely same incident) describe faulty leak diagnosis costing customer $5,000+ in unnecessary work plus collateral damage. Customer requested partial refund; company allegedly did not respond or provide refund.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2017-2018) document poor cleanup after work—drywall dust/debris left on furniture, carpets, and personal items. One customer required professional cleaning service afterward. Another review noted incomplete work with drips in newly installed fixtures.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: One 2023 review explicitly states company 'canceled it without completing the job' and charged $250 for a reset button press that competitor fixed in minutes at no charge.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE RESPONSIVENESS: 2021 review documents 11+ days without response to detailed email inquiry about $6,500 proposal; follow-up also unanswered after 2+ months.
• INCONSISTENT PROFESSIONALISM: One 2018 review documents serious behavioral issues—dented refrigerator, wet shoes on carpet, inappropriate use of apartment complex facilities in front of children. Management reportedly gave 'run around' on resolution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2017-2023 period. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, raising potential review authenticity concerns. However, sufficient detailed negative reviews exist across multiple years to establish pattern credibility.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain only 5-star ratings with no text, suggesting possible review padding or incomplete submissions.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for overall assessment but masks significant risk factors: while the company demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness and technical capability, the consistent pattern of above-market pricing, documented misdiagnosis with poor accountability, and quality control lapses warrant caution. Customers should obtain itemized quotes, seek second opinions on major recommendations, and clarify cleanup expectations before engagement.

Feikema Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness across 32 reviews. Project completion is solid at 79.5, though tempered by several documented instances of incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and follow-up issues (water heater wiring error, yard damage not properly remedied, work left undone). Pricing is competitive and fair overall (78.0), with most customers noting reasonable rates and no hidden charges, though two reviews cite unexpected billing increases. Technical experience is strong (85.0) with skilled workmanship evident in complex jobs like septic installations and sewer repairs. The company's primary weakness is inconsistent follow-through on callbacks and remediation after initial service.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The VA septic inspection complaint appears twice (2024-11-11 and 2024-10-19) with nearly identical text, suggesting either a system error or intentional resubmission. This is a legitimate complaint but should be counted as one issue, not two.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Four reviews (2025-05-26, 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-05-10) contain only 5-star ratings with no text. These provide no actionable data and were excluded from scoring.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN: Three 1-star reviews (2025-05-05, 2024-11-11/10-19, 2022-07-15, 2019-09-15, 2017-04-19) reveal systemic issues: incomplete work, poor callback responsiveness, unauthorized work initiation, and lack of follow-up on remediation. These are not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2024-2025 (47 of 56), showing strong recent performance. However, older reviews (2017-2022) contain more severe complaints about professionalism and follow-through, suggesting possible improvement over time or inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Two reviews cite unexpected charges ($100 overcharge on water heater, unauthorized work billing), contradicting the general 'fair pricing' narrative. This suggests occasional billing practice issues.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: Multiple reviews explicitly mention lack of response to owner callbacks (2022-07-15, 2019-09-15), which is a critical professionalism failure not fully reflected in the high professionalism score but is captured in project completion penalties.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to 54 usable reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions. However, the score masks meaningful variability: recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive, while older reviews reveal serious callback and follow-through failures. The company appears to have improved but still exhibits inconsistent service quality on complex jobs and remediation. Customers should expect strong initial service and professionalism but verify callback commitments in writing.

Hanson Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on available reviews. Professionalism is the standout strength, with all five reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness—including same-day service and proactive problem-solving. Project completion is consistently reliable, with reviews documenting thorough follow-through, attention to detail, and willingness to reschedule to meet customer needs. Pricing is perceived as fair and transparent across three mentions. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in multiple reviews. However, the overall WW Score confidence is moderated by the small sample size (5 reviews) and significant age disparity in the dataset.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five reviews are older than 5 years (2011, 2019). Only one review is from 2024. This limits confidence in current service quality and operational standards.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews analyzed. Scores based on fewer than 10 reviews should be treated as preliminary indicators rather than definitive assessments.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: No negative or mixed reviews present. While not necessarily indicative of fake reviews, the absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings is atypical and may not reflect the full range of customer experiences.

This WW Score of 91.4 reflects strong historical performance but should be treated as preliminary due to limited sample size and heavy reliance on reviews older than 5 years; recent performance data (2024 onward) is needed to validate current service quality.

Jack Waters Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Project completion is consistently praised with quick scheduling, prompt arrival, and thorough job execution mentioned across all reviews. Professionalism is well-documented through responsive communication, courteous staff, and clear explanations of work. Pricing is characterized as fair and reasonable with transparent billing practices. Technical expertise is evident in problem-solving and knowledge demonstrated by staff. However, the analysis is based on only 4 reviews spanning a 10-year period, with 3 reviews older than 6 years, which limits confidence in current performance reliability.

• Only 4 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• 3 of 4 reviews are older than 6 years (2014, 2017, 2018); only 1 review from 2024 — recency is a concern for assessing current service quality
• All 4 reviews are 4–5 stars with no negative feedback — while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or constructive criticism is atypical and should be noted
• Review from 2014 is 10 years old and may not reflect current operations or staffing

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (4 reviews) and significant age of most data; the single recent review (2024) is positive but insufficient alone to validate current performance — additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence in this score.