Find Nearby Plumbers In Manhattan, Kansas

Custom Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and consistent body of reviews praising punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, proactive communication, and polite, respectful staff. Project completion scores are high but tempered by three notable negative reviews: one describing a job that was not completed correctly (ongoing leak after a weekend call), one involving property damage (cabinet gash) that the owner refused to adequately address, and one involving a billing/collections dispute. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting fair hourly rates, transparency about costs, senior and military discounts, and at least two documented instances of the company proactively issuing refunds for overcharges — a rare and trust-building practice. Experience scores are strong, with many reviewers praising technicians by name and highlighting their technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, though the failed faucet repair noted in one 1-star review prevents a higher ceiling.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of near-identical reviews appear to have been submitted twice — the 'Jace and Dillon hose bib' review (dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-22) and the 'Dylon remodel/washer-dryer' review (dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-20). These duplicates were counted only once each in dimension scoring.
• TWO BLANK/USELESS REVIEWS: One review contains only a rating with no text (2024-10-12), and one contains only 'unknown' (2015-12-03) and another 'unknown' (2014-06-09). These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 25-30%) are older than 3 years, with some dating back to 2006-2015. While the overall pattern is consistent, the most recent 12 months of reviews (2024-2025) remain strongly positive and are weighted more heavily in this score.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Three 1-star reviews raise legitimate concerns — a job left with an ongoing leak after a $250/hour weekend charge, a cabinet damaged by a technician with the owner refusing accountability, and a billing/collections dispute that negatively impacted a senior citizen's credit. These are substantive complaints, not outliers, and reflect a pattern of post-service dispute handling that warrants caution.
• POTENTIAL MILD FAKE REVIEW SIGNAL: The overwhelming volume of 5-star reviews with very similar praise language ('on time,' 'professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend') is noted. However, the reviews contain sufficient specificity — named technicians, described job types, unique details — to suggest they are largely genuine. No score reduction applied, but consumers should be aware of the pattern.
• ONE REVIEW (2017) appears to reference a different geographic market (Albuquerque) and a company founded in 1959 by the reviewer's father, which does not match the Redding, CA context of other reviews. This review may have been posted to the wrong business profile and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning many years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the three substantive 1-star complaints — particularly regarding post-job dispute resolution and owner responsiveness to problems — before making a hiring decision.

JM Mechanical demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistently high marks for professionalism, technical expertise, and project completion. Technicians are repeatedly praised for punctuality, courtesy, clear communication, and honest diagnostics that prioritize customer needs over unnecessary upsells. Pricing is characterized as fair and reasonable across multiple reviews, with transparent quoting and no hidden charges. The single negative review from 2021 regarding a fireplace repair involving extended delays and alleged false claims about part sourcing significantly impacts overall reliability, though it remains an outlier among 17 total reviews. Most reviews are from 2013–2024, with stronger recent activity (2020–2024) showing sustained service quality.

• One strongly negative review (1-star, 2021-03-09) alleging dishonesty regarding part sourcing and months-long delays on a fireplace repair. This contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern and warrants investigation into whether this was an isolated incident or systemic issue.
• Majority of reviews (11 of 17) are older than 2 years, with only 6 reviews from 2020 onward. Recent data is limited, though available recent reviews (2024, 2024, 2020) maintain high quality standards.
• No reviews explicitly mention warranty coverage, guarantees, or post-service follow-up policies, limiting assessment of long-term accountability.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable based on 17 reviews with consistent data across all dimensions and HIGH confidence across the board; however, the single serious negative review alleging dishonesty introduces material uncertainty about consistency in crisis situations, and the age of most reviews (pre-2020) suggests caution in assuming current performance matches historical patterns.

Smith Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with a WW Score of 82.1. Professionalism is a clear strength (87.5), with extensive evidence of punctuality, courteous behavior, and responsive communication across 68 reviews. Experience and technical skill are also well-documented (86.0 across 45 mentions), with customers consistently praising knowledgeable technicians who solve problems efficiently. Pricing is competitive and fair (84.0 across 32 mentions), with multiple customers noting reasonable rates and transparent quotes compared to competitors. However, Project Completion shows the lowest score (78.5 across 52 mentions) due to a notable cluster of negative reviews describing incomplete work, callback issues, and quality problems that undermine otherwise strong performance. The company's family-owned reputation and consistent service quality are evident, but the completion dimension reveals reliability gaps that prevent a higher overall score.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews contain only placeholder text ('unknown', '.', 'No comments', 'See above') with 5-star ratings. These appear to be auto-generated or incomplete entries (approximately 15 reviews). Confidence in overall score reduced slightly due to data quality concerns.
• SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE CLUSTER: Six 1-star reviews (2023-08-02, 2023-05-01, 2023-02-17, 2022-04-13, 2022-04-06, 2017-04-21) describe serious issues including incomplete work, hidden damage, missed appointments, price gouging, and poor follow-up. These are detailed and credible complaints that substantially impact Project Completion scoring.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews are from 2014-2024, with a heavy concentration in 2024 (24 reviews) and 2023 (8 reviews). Older reviews (2010-2013) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail, while recent reviews show more balanced feedback including legitimate complaints.
• CALLBACK/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: Multiple reviews mention difficulty reaching the company for callbacks or incomplete repairs requiring return visits (2019-07-25, 2022-04-06, 2023-08-02 cluster). This pattern directly impacts Project Completion dimension.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Three reviews document workmanship failures: cracked tile covered with caulk (2023-02-17), improper pipe removal (2022-04-13), and missing cleanout documentation (2022-04-13). These suggest inconsistent quality control.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable with HIGH overall confidence due to large sample size (125 reviews) and substantial mention counts across all dimensions (32-68 mentions each). However, the score should be interpreted with caution: the company demonstrates genuinely strong professionalism and technical expertise, but the documented project completion failures and callback issues are credible and material. Prospective customers should expect professional service but should verify completion guarantees and establish clear callback protocols before hiring. The fake review entries do not materially affect scoring but indicate some data quality issues on the review platform.

DR Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism and responsiveness. The company excels at emergency response, punctuality, and customer communication, with numerous reviews praising same-day or rapid service. Technical competence is consistently highlighted across complex projects including water heater replacements, pipe repairs, and system installations. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with three explicit complaints about overcharging (garbage disposal at $545 vs $150 cost, price increases during remodels, and one instance of refusing warranty work). Additionally, one serious quality issue involved incorrect shark bite installation that caused recurring leaks three years later, and another involved improper hot/cold line installation behind walls during a remodel.

• PRICING CONCERN: Three reviews explicitly mention overcharging or unfair pricing practices ($545 garbage disposal replacement, price increases during remodels, and one instance of refusing to honor warranty work). This contradicts the majority positive pricing feedback and suggests inconsistent pricing practices.
• QUALITY DEFECT PATTERN: Two reviews describe significant workmanship failures—incorrect shark bite installation causing leaks 3 years later (customer stated company did not admit fault or back up work) and improper hot/cold supply line installation behind walls during a large remodel (company refused to fix acknowledged mistake).
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple empty/blank review texts with 5.0 ratings (at least 3 instances) suggest potential data quality issues or placeholder reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Majority of reviews (approximately 60+) are from May-June 2025, with a sharp drop-off in older reviews. This clustering may indicate recent reputation management or review campaign activity.
• INCONSISTENT ACCOUNTABILITY: One review explicitly states company 'did not admit to their defect work or back it up' regarding a failed shark bite installation, while other reviews praise honesty and trustworthiness. This suggests selective accountability depending on circumstances.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but LOWER confidence for pricing assessment. The company demonstrates genuine strengths in emergency response and customer service, but the explicit pricing complaints and documented quality failures (shark bite installation, supply line installation errors) indicate real operational issues that are not fully reflected in the predominantly positive review volume. The recent clustering of reviews and multiple blank entries warrant caution. Prospective customers should specifically discuss pricing structure upfront and request written warranties for complex work.

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.

Summit Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, the company shows significant variability in project completion reliability, with numerous reports of missed appointments, poor follow-up communication, and delayed estimates that substantially impact overall trustworthiness. Pricing feedback is mixed—while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, a notable segment reports unexpectedly high charges and lack of transparency in fee structures. The company excels when actively engaged but struggles with administrative consistency and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Appointment no-show pattern detected across multiple reviews spanning 2016-2025. At least 12 distinct reviews report missed appointments, failed callbacks, or scheduling failures with no communication. This is a systemic operational issue.
• CRITICAL: Follow-up communication failures documented repeatedly. Multiple customers report being unable to obtain promised estimates, callbacks, or status updates despite multiple contact attempts over weeks.
• Pricing transparency concerns: Several reviews (2024, 2022, 2011) report unexpectedly high charges, lack of itemization, and disputes over service fees. One customer paid ~$600 for <1 hour faucet installation; another charged $100+ for 10-15 minute furnace inspection.
• Quality control inconsistency: A few reviews report incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, reversed water lines, and contamination (oil/gas in toilet tank). These suggest occasional lapses in technical execution or quality assurance.
• Home warranty company friction: Multiple reviews indicate problems when company is assigned via home warranty—billing disputes, authorization issues, and poor coordination with warranty providers.
• Recency note: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) show continued appointment/communication issues, indicating problems persist despite company's long history.
• Positive review clustering: Approximately 60% of reviews are 5-star with generic praise; however, these are distributed across genuine specific details (names, job types, timelines), reducing fake review suspicion. The 1-2 star reviews are highly specific and credible, suggesting real operational failures rather than review manipulation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism when actively engaged, the high frequency of appointment failures, communication breakdowns, and follow-up issues across a 9-year review span indicates serious operational reliability problems that directly contradict the positive dimension scores. Customers should expect quality work but should prepare for scheduling frustration and verify all commitments in writing.