Find Nearby Plumbers In Terre Haute, Indiana

Walker Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism (85.2) and technical experience (86.4). The company excels in responsiveness, punctuality, and staff courtesy across 127 mentions of professional conduct. Pricing is competitive and fair (83.1 across 68 mentions), with customers frequently noting value and transparency. However, project completion shows the lowest score (78.5 across 89 mentions), reflecting a pattern of callbacks, incomplete initial work, and occasional follow-up issues that required multiple visits. While the vast majority of reviews are highly positive (5-star ratings), the negative reviews consistently cite specific failures in execution and communication that warrant attention.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple negative reviews (8 one-star and 2 two-star ratings) describe similar issues: incomplete work on first visit requiring callbacks, miscommunication, and refusal to honor warranty or return visits without additional charges. Examples include shower valve repair (4 trips, $800 in missed work), sump pump installation errors (repeated failures over 18 months), and water shut-off valve damage.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 40% of reviews are clustered on 2025-06-09, 2025-05-26, 2025-05-19, 2025-05-10, and 2025-04-10 (recent months), while negative reviews span 2017-2024. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), suggesting possible review management or seasonal variation.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Several reviews contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('Walker is the best', 'Just the best!', 'Absolutely the best in town') and empty review text fields with 5-star ratings (at least 8 instances). However, the majority of reviews contain detailed, specific accounts of work performed, technician names, and pricing details, suggesting most reviews are authentic.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews mention lack of follow-up, no-shows without notification, and failure to return calls or respond to online contact forms. One review explicitly states they waited until end of week with no response after online contact.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Negative reviews describe technician errors (stripped valve mounts, incorrect pump installation, improper tub installation, broken water shut-off valves) that suggest inconsistent quality control or inadequate training oversight.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Two reviews mention unexpected charges or disputes over 'trip charges' despite company claims of no trip charge, and one review describes being charged $1,300 for a pump that should have been installed correctly initially.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One review from 2019 alleges the owner (Robert Walker) used abusive language during a billing dispute, which if accurate represents a serious professionalism concern.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for understanding Walker Plumbing's overall reputation, supported by 227 reviews with high confidence across all dimensions. However, the score masks a significant quality control issue: while the company excels in responsiveness, friendliness, and pricing, a consistent pattern of incomplete initial work requiring callbacks and occasional technician errors suggests customers should expect potential follow-up visits. The score is most trustworthy for assessing professionalism and pricing, but less reliable for predicting first-time project completion. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive, but this may not fully reflect the documented pattern of callbacks and rework issues present in the historical record.

Smart Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (86.5) and experience (84.1). The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and technical knowledge, with numerous reviews praising Peter and team members for quick diagnosis and efficient problem-solving. Pricing scores well (79.2) with most customers describing rates as fair and reasonable, though a small subset of reviews cite specific jobs as overpriced (e.g., $270 for 20-minute drain cleaning). Project completion is solid (81.8) with strong follow-through and callback honoring, though a few older reviews mention incomplete work or unresponsiveness on complex projects like R/O system installations. The high mention counts across all dimensions (52–78) provide strong confidence in these scores.

• Potential fake review pattern detected: Multiple reviews from 2025-05-10 and 2024-06-09 use suspiciously similar phrasing ('fair priced,' 'quality work,' 'definitely recommend') with minimal detail. However, these are balanced by highly detailed, specific reviews from the same dates, suggesting mixed authenticity rather than wholesale fabrication.
• Recency bias noted: Approximately 40% of reviews are from June 2024 onwards, with a significant cluster on 2024-06-09. Older reviews (2018–2020) show more critical detail and occasional negative experiences, while recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with generic praise.
• Negative reviews are sparse but substantive: Five 1-star reviews cite specific issues (poor quality work, late arrival, overcharging, rude staff, incomplete R/O system work). These are credible complaints that slightly depress overall scores but do not suggest systemic fraud.
• One review (2018-11-09) is extremely long and detailed, describing a negative experience with Smart Plumbing and competitor Roto Rooter. While critical, it provides specific context and appears genuine rather than fake.
• Empty or minimal reviews (no text, single words like 'Great service') comprise approximately 8% of dataset. These add noise but do not materially affect scoring due to high volume of detailed reviews.

This WW Score of 82.3 is highly reliable, supported by 127 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (52–78). The company demonstrates consistent excellence in professionalism and experience, with fair pricing and solid project completion. However, the score should be interpreted as representing a good but not exceptional service provider; the presence of credible negative reviews (incomplete work, overcharging, staff rudeness) and a cluster of generic recent reviews suggest caution against treating this as a perfect 90+ score. Customers should expect professional, responsive service at fair prices, but should verify specific pricing upfront and ensure detailed scope agreements for complex projects.

Wabash Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and responsive service across 32 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and follow-through honored, though two recent negative reviews (May 2024, March 2024) reveal serious gaps in execution and accountability—incomplete work, poor cleanup, and unresponsive management. Experience and technical skill are well-documented with multiple mentions of knowledgeable technicians (particularly Jacob and Walt) solving complex problems efficiently. Pricing shows mixed signals: most reviews praise fair rates, but one detailed complaint documents a $521 toilet installation with unexplained cost overruns and a $438 quote that ballooned significantly. The company's strength in professionalism and experience is undermined by recent service failures and pricing transparency issues.

• CRITICAL: Two recent negative reviews (May 2024, March 2024) describe incomplete work, poor cleanup, unresponsive management, and significant cost overruns. These represent a sharp departure from the predominantly positive historical pattern and suggest possible operational decline or inconsistency.
• PRICING CONCERN: One detailed review documents a $438 quote that became $521 for a single toilet installation with no clear justification. Another review mentions a $2000 estimate elsewhere vs. $925 from this company, making pricing transparency difficult to assess.
• RECENCY BIAS: 38 of 42 reviews are from 2021–2023 (older than 12 months). Only 4 reviews are from 2024, and 2 of those are highly negative. Recent data is limited and concerning.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: May 2024 review explicitly states shower installation was not completed after 7 days. March 2024 review states shower faucet nozzle repair was not completed. This is a project completion failure.
• UNRESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT: March 2024 review reports manager did not return call for one month regarding cost dispute. This is a professionalism and accountability failure.
• PATTERN OBSERVATION: Most 5-star reviews from 2021–2023 are brief and generic (e.g., 'Really good', 'Great service!'), while negative reviews are detailed and specific. This asymmetry is typical but does not indicate fake reviews—the negative reviews are too detailed and credible to dismiss.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical data (2021–2023) supports an 85+ rating, two recent detailed complaints (2024) describing incomplete work, poor cleanup, unresponsive management, and cost overruns suggest the company may be experiencing operational problems. The 82.1 score reflects this deterioration. Confidence in the overall score is HIGH due to volume, but confidence in FUTURE performance is MODERATE due to recent negative trajectory. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes, clarify scope explicitly, and verify completion before final payment.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and communication. Project completion is reliably documented with fast turnaround times and follow-through on callbacks. Technical skill and experience are evident from customer confidence in workmanship and problem-solving. Pricing data is limited to one explicit mention, but that reference indicates fair and transparent pricing. The primary limitation is the small sample size (3 reviews) and significant age of two reviews (2008 and 2013), which reduces confidence in current performance standards.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Two of three reviews are over 10 years old (2008, 2013); only one review from past 12 months is available
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention — insufficient data for confident pricing assessment
• No negative reviews present — while positive consistency is good, absence of critical feedback may not reflect full customer experience spectrum

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size and age of most reviews; while the contractor shows strong positive indicators, a larger and more recent review pool would be needed to establish reliable current performance benchmarks.

Marshall Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and fair pricing, with most customers praising workmanship quality and reasonable rates. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly hampered by recurring communication and no-show issues documented across multiple reviews spanning 2010–2019. While many long-term customers report excellent service, a consistent pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments without explanation, and poor follow-up communication creates material reliability concerns. The business appears to struggle with responsiveness and scheduling consistency despite delivering quality work when they do show up.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews (2010, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019) document identical failure pattern—customers left messages, received no callback, or were no-shows. This is not isolated; it is systemic.
• No-show incidents documented in 2010, 2014, and 2015 reviews with no apparent resolution or apology offered.
• Several reviews marked 'unknown' text (5 reviews with 5-star ratings, no detail) reduce confidence slightly, though majority of reviews contain substantive detail.
• Review dates span 2008–2019 with most concentrated 2010–2014; only 1 review from 2019 (negative). Recency data is limited.
• Positive reviews often mention 'long hair' and 'jeans' appearance, which some customers note but accept; not a professionalism detractor in most cases.
• One customer explicitly stated 'Only gave them one star because there isn't an option for NO stars'—indicating extreme dissatisfaction with communication.

This score should be trusted with caution: while technical quality and pricing are well-supported by high-confidence data, the professionalism and completion scores are dragged down by a documented pattern of communication failures and no-shows that persists across a 9-year period. Customers should expect quality work but should not rely on consistent responsiveness or appointment reliability.

Aqua Systems earns strong marks for professionalism and technical experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who arrived on time and explained systems thoroughly. Pricing is generally viewed as competitive or fair, though a meaningful minority of reviewers noted costs were higher than expected or that estimates were not always honored transparently. Project completion is the weakest dimension: while most jobs were completed successfully, a notable cluster of serious complaints describes flooded basements, improper installations requiring multiple return visits, abandoned follow-through on promises (e.g., removing old equipment, delivering salt), and at least two cases of significant property damage attributed to negligent inspections. The score is tempered by several 1-star reviews describing severe outcomes including basement flooding, unresolved water quality failures, and poor responsiveness to complaints, which represent meaningful risk signals despite being a minority of the total review volume.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed 1-star basement flooding review (dated 2017-05-24) appears to be submitted twice with identical text and rating. Only one instance was counted for scoring purposes.
• BULK REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large number of reviews are dated 2013-05-31, 2013-09-23, 2016-09-06, and 2013-02-01, with many being very short and generic (e.g., 'It was fine.', 'They were great!', 'unknown'). This pattern is consistent with batch-solicited reviews and may inflate overall sentiment. Confidence in the positive skew is reduced accordingly.
• MULTIPLE 'unknown' REVIEWS: At least 10 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' or a single punctuation mark with a 4 or 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: At least 4 reviews describe serious property damage or negligence (basement flooding x2, improper installation causing flooding, unresolved sulfur/iron water failure). These are not isolated complaints and represent a pattern of installation quality risk.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are dated between 2013 and 2017, with only a small number from 2018-2020. The score reflects a historical picture and may not represent current service quality.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite failure to return calls, missed appointments, or poor follow-through on commitments, which negatively impacts both professionalism and project completion scores.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the serious installation failure complaints carefully, as they represent a meaningful tail risk despite the predominantly positive review majority.