Find Nearby Plumbers In Lawrence, Kansas

Bost Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently praised attribute, with every reviewer noting punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and courteous behavior — including protective measures like laying down paper and cardboard before work. Project completion is equally well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished on time or ahead of schedule, clean worksites, and responsive emergency service. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair or reasonable in five reviews, including one reviewer who was pleasantly surprised the bill was lower than expected. Experience and workmanship are highlighted in multiple reviews, including a notable case where Bost solved a problem a competing plumber had refused to attempt.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews contain specific, varied details that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review dates span from 2013 to 2024 — 5 of 8 reviews are older than 12 months, and 4 are older than 3 years. Recency weighting is limited; the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are consistent with older ones but the sample of recent reviews is small.
• No negative experiences or constructive criticism appear in any review, which is statistically uncommon for a real-world service provider. However, the specificity of individual stories (frozen pipes, garage utility sink, Thanksgiving emergency) lends credibility.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given that all dimensions are supported by multiple specific, detailed reviews, though the all-5-star pattern and significant proportion of older reviews (pre-2022) mean the score should be interpreted with slight caution until more recent feedback accumulates.

Aqua Flow Plumbing, led primarily by Dave, receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is a standout strength, with numerous reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, same-day and weekend availability, friendly communication, and clean workmanship. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, or even significantly below competitor quotes, with one reviewer noting a bid one-fifth the price of a competing plumber. Project completion is well-documented, with reviewers repeatedly noting that Dave resolved issues other plumbers had failed to fix, completed jobs quickly and thoroughly, and followed through even under difficult conditions such as rain, mud, and late-night emergencies. Experience and technical skill are highlighted across many reviews, including successful diagnosis of a long-standing water hammer problem, creative access solutions to avoid unnecessary damage, and correct identification of faults left by prior contractors. One negative review from 2011 cited poor customer service but offered no specific detail, and its age significantly limits its weight.

• Two reviews dated 2023-09-27 appear to be near-identical duplicates (same full review text, same rating, posted within 30 minutes of each other). These were counted as one unique mention to avoid inflating scores.
• The majority of reviews are all 5-star ratings with only one 1-star review. While the volume and specificity of positive reviews lend credibility, this pattern warrants mild caution.
• Several reviews from 2009–2013 are over 10 years old and were given reduced weight per recency rules. The bulk of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2017–2024, which supports overall score reliability.
• The single negative review (1 star, 2011) states 'zero stars for customer service' but provides no specific details about what occurred. Due to lack of specificity and age, it was noted but had minimal scoring impact.
• No clearly fabricated or bot-generated reviews were detected. Most positive reviews include specific job details, named individuals, and unique circumstances, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 34 usable reviews spanning 2009–2024, with the majority of detailed reviews from 2017–2024, a high mention count across all four dimensions, and strong specificity in reviewer accounts — making this score reasonably reliable, though the near-universal 5-star pattern and one duplicate review warrant a small degree of caution.

Stuart Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous technicians, and clear communication across 38 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 26 mentions of knowledgeable, efficient work. Project completion shows solid performance (79/100) across 28 reviews, though some older cases reveal follow-up issues and incomplete resolutions. Pricing is the weakest dimension (68/100) with 8 explicit mentions of overcharging, inflated quotes, and unfair pricing practices. The company excels in emergency response and customer service but has documented failures in accountability and pricing transparency.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 15 reviews from 2025-04-10 to 2025-06-07 contain minimal or no text (empty reviews or single-phrase reviews like 'A plus', 'perfect as always'). These lack specificity and detail typical of genuine reviews, suggesting possible fake or auto-generated reviews.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple explicit complaints about overcharging (1.5x-2x market rates) and inflated quotes. One customer reported being quoted $114 for work others charged $45 for. Another was quoted nearly double Home Depot pricing for same unit.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Negative reviews document unresolved problems (water heater installed incorrectly in 2020, still failing in 2022), refusal to take responsibility for damage (ceiling hole), and dismissive customer service when questioned on pricing.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2017-2022) contain more substantive negative feedback, suggesting either improved operations or review manipulation.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: 4 one-star reviews explicitly accuse company of dishonesty, padding bills, and taking advantage of elderly customers. These directly contradict the 'honest' and 'trustworthy' claims in positive reviews.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the HIGH confidence reflects substantial mention counts, the recent flood of vague 5-star reviews, combined with documented pricing complaints and accountability failures in older reviews, suggests the overall score may be artificially inflated. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism but has clear weaknesses in pricing fairness and follow-through on complex jobs. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes and verify pricing independently before committing.

Floyd's Drain Cleaning demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism (88.5) and experience (87.0), supported by consistent positive feedback across 13 and 10 reviews respectively. Pricing is competitive and transparent (85.0 across 7 mentions), with customers frequently noting fair rates compared to larger competitors. Project completion scores lower at 78.0 due to two significant negative reviews documenting repeated no-shows and failure to deliver estimates, which substantially impact reliability perception despite the majority of reviews reporting successful job completion. The company shows strong responsiveness and technical skill when work is performed, but the estimate/scheduling failures represent a material weakness.

• Two 1-star reviews (2022-09-14 and 2015-01-20) document serious failures in appointment-keeping and estimate delivery, suggesting systemic issues with the answering service or scheduling process. These are not isolated complaints but describe repeated failures across multiple contact attempts.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (13 of 18 reviews predate 2019), with the most recent negative review from September 2022. Recency is limited, making it difficult to assess current operational status.
• One review (2016-02-14) explicitly mentions 'a couple negative reviews that had bad things to say about the answering service,' indicating this has been a known issue for at least 6+ years.
• The positive reviews, while detailed and specific, cluster heavily around named technicians (Alex, Oleg, Jonathan), suggesting service quality may be highly dependent on individual technician assignment rather than consistent company-wide standards.

This score should be treated with moderate caution: while the HIGH confidence is supported by 18 reviews with substantial mentions across all dimensions, the two documented failures in estimate delivery and appointment-keeping represent material operational weaknesses that directly contradict the positive service completion feedback, and the age of most reviews (pre-2019) limits current applicability.

CM Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built on consistent responsiveness, same-day service, and friendly customer interactions across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores well in the majority of reviews but is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative incidents: a worker accused of peering into a bedroom window, a no-show appointment with a full voicemail box, repeated lateness, a gas leak left after a repair, a disputed and potentially dishonest diagnosis of a toilet flange, and one reviewer citing unprofessional work at an overpriced rate. Pricing is generally praised as fair and reasonable, but two reviews cite overcharging and one describes a grossly inflated estimate for unnecessary work, preventing a higher score. Project completion is solid — most jobs are described as finished same-day and efficiently — but the gas leak callback failure, the no-show, and the disputed home warranty contractor incident introduce meaningful risk. Experience scores moderately well given praise for technical competence and problem-solving, but the gas leak left after a fitting replacement and the misdiagnosed toilet flange are serious quality red flags that temper confidence.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-07-15 (23:09 and 23:11) are word-for-word identical, praising Franklin and Samuel. This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially boosted review. One instance was excluded from scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews attributed to Josh and his spouse about a broken attic water line (one dated 2019-12-31, one dated 2020-06-10) are nearly word-for-word identical. Likely the same reviewer posting twice or a planted review.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2020-10-05) alleges a CM Plumbing worker was caught peeping into her bedroom window. This is an unverified but serious allegation that prospective customers should be aware of.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer (2018-06-11) reports a gas leak was left after a fitting replacement, discovered 5 days later. The company's response was reportedly only 'I'm sorry.' This represents a significant workmanship and safety failure.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSIS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2020-06-10) reports being quoted $680 for a toilet flange replacement that turned out to be a $4 wax ring fix, suggesting a potentially fraudulent or grossly incompetent diagnosis.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY FAILURE: One reviewer (2015-12-22) reports a scheduled 7am appointment where no one showed and the voicemail was full. Another reviewer (2017-03-07) reports significant lateness and a $300/hour effective labor rate.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Many reviews date back to 2011–2020. While volume is high, a significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Recent reviews (2023–2024) are more positive and suggest possible improvement, but older negative patterns should not be dismissed.
• OVERPRICING COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2020-08-10) describes $350 for one hour of work as steep and unprofessional. Another (2017-03-07) calculated an effective rate of ~$300/hour. These are outliers but notable.
• UNVERIFIED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT: The lengthy 1-star review (2020-03-05) appears to be primarily a complaint about First American Home Warranty, not directly about CM Plumbing's workmanship. It was given reduced weight but noted for the allegation that a CM Plumbing technician misrepresented the cause of damage.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews (62 total) spanning 13 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but prospective customers should weigh the serious qualitative flags — including a safety allegation, a confirmed gas leak callback failure, a suspected fraudulent diagnosis, and duplicate reviews — which meaningfully limit how much the numerical score alone should be trusted.

Kastl Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous staff, and skilled workmanship across recent reviews (2024-2025). However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion and follow-up issues documented in older reviews, including incomplete cleanup, missed appointments, and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing overbilling, lack of transparency, and bills exceeding proposals. The stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews and older 1-star reviews suggests either significant operational improvements or potential review authenticity concerns. Conservative scoring reflects the documented billing disputes and project completion failures that directly contradict the overwhelmingly positive recent feedback.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 32 of 56 reviews are 5-star with minimal detail or generic praise (e.g., empty reviews, single-sentence comments like 'Good job!'). This concentration of vague positive reviews raises authenticity concerns.
• TEMPORAL ANOMALY: Stark divide between recent reviews (2024-2025, almost all 5-star with glowing detail) and older reviews (2012-2015, multiple 1-star with specific documented failures). This pattern suggests either dramatic operational turnaround or potential review manipulation.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple documented cases of overbilling (2022 review: charged 5.5 hours for 4 hours work; 2014 review: final bill $500 over proposal despite less work required). Pricing dimension scored conservatively due to these explicit contradictions.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 2015 reviews document incomplete sewer line cleanup, sink holes left unfilled, debris left in yard, multiple broken promises to return, and rude behavior when confronted. 2015 review also documents missed appointment with no callback.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: 2015 and 2014 reviews cite owner and plumber hanging up on customers, rude phone staff, and failure to return calls. 2017 review cites rude, insulting receptionist and inability to obtain bids.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: All reviews from past 12 months (2024-2025) are 5-star. All negative reviews are 3+ years old (2013-2015). This temporal clustering warrants caution in interpreting overall score.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION: Despite HIGH mention counts, overall confidence is tempered by the documented pattern of serious failures in older reviews and the suspicious concentration of recent positive reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive and detailed, the company has a documented history of serious billing disputes, incomplete project work, and poor customer service (2013-2015). The dramatic shift from 1-star to 5-star reviews over time, combined with a suspicious cluster of vague recent reviews, suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review authenticity issues. The score of 78.2 reflects a conservative middle ground: strong recent performance is offset by unresolved historical failures and pricing transparency concerns. Prospective customers should request detailed written proposals, clarify billing terms upfront, and verify completion standards before engaging services.