Find Nearby Plumbers In Lawrence, Indiana

Honor Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism scores highest (88.5) with consistent mentions of punctuality, politeness, responsiveness, and communication across 28 reviews. Project completion (84.0) is solid with 26 mentions reflecting reliable job finishing and follow-through, though three significant negative reviews citing incomplete work and rework requirements temper this score. Experience (87.0) is well-supported by 22 mentions of technical skill and problem-solving ability. Pricing (79.0) is the weakest dimension with 13 mentions; while most reviews praise fair and reasonable rates, two detailed complaints about overcharging ($900 for 2 hours labor, $6000+ for work requiring complete redo) create meaningful concern about pricing consistency and transparency.

• Three 1-star reviews (2024-01-16, 2023-09-28, 2022-03-18) present serious concerns: no-show with no communication, alleged overcharging for labor, and major rework required on $6000+ job. These are not generic complaints and carry substantial weight despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.
• Pricing dimension shows polarization: majority of reviews cite 'reasonable' and 'fair' pricing, but two detailed negative reviews allege significant overcharging and poor value. This suggests possible inconsistency in pricing practices or customer selection.
• Review recency: 18 of 40 reviews (45%) are from 2021 or earlier (3+ years old). More recent reviews (2024, 2023) include both exceptional praise and serious complaints, suggesting ongoing variability in service quality.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show specific details, varied language, named technicians (Ricky, George, Jeremy, Todd, Darrell, April), and authentic negative feedback that would be unlikely in fabricated reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence overall, but with a critical caveat: the three serious negative reviews (no-show, overcharging, major rework) represent genuine service failures that are not offset by positive reviews alone. The score reflects a company with strong professionalism and experience but inconsistent execution on project completion and pricing transparency. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates and clarify labor rates upfront before engaging.

Russ Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and pleasant demeanor across multiple reviews. Project completion is solid with evidence of thorough work and customer satisfaction across jobs. Pricing is noted as fair and reasonable in the reviews that address it, though limited data on this dimension. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident from specific examples of complex plumbing issues resolved effectively. However, the dataset is heavily weighted toward older reviews (most from 2007–2017), which limits confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 8 reviews are older than 7 years (2007–2017). Only 1 review from 2017. No reviews from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• MINIMAL USABLE DATA: One review contains only a period (.) with no substantive content and was excluded. Another review text is 'unknown' and was excluded.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great work. Very happy' and 'I'm very pleased with every job'). While not definitively fake, these lack the specificity of the more detailed reviews.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS: No negative or mixed reviews present. This is consistent with a well-regarded contractor but limits ability to identify weaknesses or validate through contrast.

This score should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias—the dataset is dominated by reviews from 7–17 years ago, making it unreliable for assessing current performance. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate dimension coverage but insufficient recent evidence to confidently recommend based on this data alone.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

A&M Plumbing receives strong praise across many recent reviews for punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, proactive updates, and above-and-beyond behavior. However, professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by two older but detailed reviews describing a contractor (Matt) who gave quotes and then completely failed to show up or communicate, as well as one review citing poor communication during a job. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious, specific complaints about faulty installations — including leaking dishwashers, sinks, and toilets installed incorrectly, a flooded rec room caused by an improperly secured discharge hose, and an alleged attempt to upsell unnecessary repairs — all of which represent significant workmanship failures. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who mention it, with several reviewers calling costs fair or reasonable, though one review describes a high-pressure upsell attempt that undermines this. The experience dimension reflects a split picture: many reviewers praise skill and attention to detail, but the documented installation failures indicate inconsistent technical execution across jobs and possibly across different technicians.

• Three reviews dated 2015–2015 contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text and 5-star ratings — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Two reviews dated 2022-09-30 contain only the word 'Excellent' with identical dates and identical text — possible duplicate or fake reviews; excluded from substantive scoring.
• The review set spans from 2008 to 2024, meaning many reviews are significantly older than 12 months. Reviews from 2013–2018 reference different named technicians (Ty, Matt, Alin) suggesting personnel or ownership changes over time, which limits the reliability of older reviews as indicators of current performance.
• The two most damaging no-show reviews (2015 and 2016) reference a 'Matt' who may no longer be associated with the business. However, they cannot be dismissed without confirmation and are included in scoring with appropriate weight reduction due to age.
• The 2020 review describing multiple simultaneous installation failures (dishwasher, sink, toilet) is highly specific and credible, and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• The 2008 review about the flooded rec room is over 15 years old and has been given minimal weight in scoring due to extreme age, but is noted as a documented workmanship failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of data volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews, evidence of personnel changes over time, and several specific and credible complaints about installation failures that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong pattern of positive recent feedback.

Pat receives strong praise in two of three reviews, with one reviewer highlighting exceptional effort on a difficult sewer clog job — working past business hours, honoring his estimate despite extra labor, and cleaning up thoroughly. A second reviewer briefly but positively notes punctuality, reasonable prices, and clear communication. However, a one-star review explicitly states dissatisfaction with both the time taken and the value received, which meaningfully pulls down pricing and project completion scores. With only three reviews spanning roughly three years, confidence in all dimensions is low to moderate, and the single negative review carries significant weight given the small sample size.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• Review date range spans 2020–2023; the most recent review is from November 2023, but the sample is too small to assess recency trends meaningfully.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authenticity.
• The 1-star review directly contradicts the 5-star reviews on value and timeliness, indicating real variance in customer experience that cannot be dismissed.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — do not rely on it as a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality until a larger review sample is available.

Dial One demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by missed appointments, poor communication, dispatcher rudeness, and failure to honor stated policies. Pricing is a major complaint with customers reporting grossly inflated estimates ($10,000 for a $300 fix), hidden service charges, and refusal to honor discounts after service failures. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, parts not in stock at appointment time, and unresolved issues after payment. Only one positive review from 2014 acknowledges honest pricing and thoroughness, but this is heavily outweighed by six recent negative reviews (2015-2024) documenting systemic failures. The company's stated "Always on time or you don't pay" policy is revealed to apply only to premium reservations, misleading regular customers.

• CRITICAL: Six of seven reviews are 1-star ratings with explicit condemnation. Only one 5-star review from 2014 provides positive feedback.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most damaging reviews are from 2020-2024 (4 reviews), indicating ongoing systemic problems. The single positive review is from 2014 (10 years old), suggesting past performance does not reflect current operations.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews allege deceptive or grossly inflated estimates. Review 2 documents a $10,000 estimate for a $300 repair. Review 1 reveals hidden conditions on advertised policy. Review 4 complains of unnecessary service charges.
• OPERATIONAL FAILURES: Consistent pattern of missed appointments, failed communication (calls to wrong numbers, no callbacks), and last-minute rescheduling due to lack of inventory.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE BREAKDOWN: Review 4 documents dispatcher hanging up on upset customer. Review 1 documents manager refusing discount despite service failure.
• NOT FAKE REVIEWS: Despite uniformly negative tone, reviews contain specific details (dollar amounts, timeframes, technical issues, dates) that indicate genuine customer experiences rather than fabricated complaints.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on seven reviews with consistent, detailed evidence across all dimensions, predominantly from the past 4 years, with no indicators of fake reviews. The company exhibits systematic failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, and project completion that warrant serious caution.