Find Nearby Plumbers In Overland Park, Kansas

Porter Plumbing has a strong overall track record across a broad set of reviews spanning 2008–2024, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, and quality of work. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable or better than competitors, and most jobs were completed fully and on time. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2017 describes serious failures across nearly every dimension — including being very late, leaving a large mess, poor communication, unprofessional appearance, overpricing, and leaving the customer without water for 6 days — which meaningfully pulls scores down from what would otherwise be near-excellent ratings. The most recent review (2024) is positive and suggests continued quality service, but the gap between the 2024 review and the prior cluster of reviews limits recency confidence. Overall, the contractor performs well for small-to-medium jobs but the 2017 incident raises questions about performance on larger or more complex projects.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (2017) describes severe failures in professionalism, project completion, pricing, and workmanship — this is a significant outlier that materially impacts all dimension scores and cannot be dismissed.
• Multiple reviews reference different first names (Tom, Bill, Phil, Phillip) for what appears to be the same business — this may indicate multiple technicians operating under the Porter Plumbing name, making it difficult to attribute all reviews to a single individual's performance.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most clustered between 2008–2015. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024). Recency of data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance accurately.
• Several older 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Overall I felt confident with the work, price, and the man.' and 'I've used him three times over the last couple of years and have been pleased with his work and his price.'). While not conclusively fake, these low-detail reviews reduce confidence in the positive signal they provide.
• No reviews mention negative pricing experiences except the 1-star review, which described overpricing. The pricing score is moderated conservatively given this single negative data point against otherwise positive but sometimes vague pricing mentions.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for general trend assessment given the volume of reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the significant age of most reviews, the presence of one severe negative outlier, and the limited number of recent reviews to confirm current performance standards.

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.

Two Pillars Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with multiple reviews praising workmanship quality and responsiveness. However, the score is tempered by two serious 1-star reviews citing communication failures, follow-through issues, and unprofessional conduct from office staff. The most recent negative review (January 2024) describes significant project abandonment and defensive, rude customer service, which directly contradicts the positive reviews and raises concerns about consistency. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions. The company shows capability but inconsistent execution and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (Jan 2024 and Jun 2022) describe serious failures in project completion, communication, and professionalism—specifically abandoned work, lack of follow-through, and rude office staff. These directly contradict the five 5-star reviews and suggest inconsistent service quality.
• The January 2024 negative review is recent and detailed with specific grievances (frozen pipes work not completed, miscommunication about landlord approval, defensive staff behavior). This carries significant weight and cannot be dismissed.
• Three of the five positive reviews (March 2024) share identical date/time stamps (09:xx:xx on 2024-03-14), which is unusual and may indicate coordinated posting. However, they contain distinct details and are not verbatim, so fake review confidence is LIMITED rather than HIGH.
• Recency concern: One positive review is from 2021 (over 3 years old) and one from 2022. The most recent negative review (Jan 2024) is more current than most positive reviews.
• The June 2022 negative review is vague ('owners will lie') but reinforces a pattern of integrity concerns alongside the detailed January 2024 complaint.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical competence appears solid, the presence of two serious negative reviews—particularly the recent, detailed January 2024 complaint describing project abandonment and unprofessional staff conduct—significantly undermines confidence in consistency and reliability. The WW Score reflects an average across conflicting evidence; potential customers should read the full negative reviews before deciding.

Ken's Drain Cleaning shows strong technical expertise and reasonable pricing, but professionalism is significantly undermined by serious service failures and poor communication. While 8 of 12 reviews praise the work quality and responsiveness, 4 reviews document critical failures: missed clogged drains during inspections, refusal to return calls, rude/condescending communication, and charging full fees for incomplete work. The pattern suggests inconsistent service delivery—sometimes excellent, sometimes negligent. Project completion scores are held down by documented cases where work was not properly performed or follow-up was abandoned. The WW Score reflects strong technical capability offset by reliability and professionalism concerns that create significant risk.

• CRITICAL: Four 1-star reviews (33% of total) document serious service failures including missed diagnoses during inspections, failure to return calls, rude communication, and disputed charges. These are not minor complaints but substantive failures of core service.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews mention difficulty reaching Ken via phone/callback (2021, 2019, 2018 reviews). This suggests a systemic communication/responsiveness issue despite some positive mentions of quick response.
• INSPECTION QUALITY CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2021 and 2020) allege that drain inspections were performed inadequately or falsely reported as clear when they were actually clogged. This directly undermines the core service offering.
• PRICING DISPUTE: 2019 review disputes $150 charge for incomplete service (scope could not be performed due to clog). 2021 review mentions competitor bids of $6-10K for line replacement, suggesting Ken's may have avoided upselling but pricing transparency is unclear.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are older (2019-2021), but the most recent negative review is from 2020. Most recent reviews (2023, 2022) are positive. However, older reviews document serious failures that suggest systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 8 of 12 reviews appear to be from realtors or real estate transactions (pre-purchase inspections). This may skew results toward professional/referral relationships rather than typical homeowner experience.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While technical expertise appears genuine (HIGH confidence), the professionalism dimension is severely compromised by documented failures in inspection accuracy, communication, and customer service recovery. The 4 one-star reviews represent substantive service failures, not minor complaints, and suggest inconsistent execution. Recommend requesting references and clarifying inspection protocols before engaging.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise based on multiple reviews praising punctuality, cleanliness, communication, and problem-solving ability. However, a critical 1-star review from 2021 describing incomplete work, leaking fixtures, and incorrect installations significantly impacts the overall score. While most recent reviews (2023-2024) are highly positive, the project completion dimension is undermined by explicit evidence of abandoned work and quality failures that required third-party remediation. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, but the severe completion failure creates substantial reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2021-05-07) reports incomplete job, leaking toilets, unhooked plumbing, and incorrect electrical work requiring other contractors to fix. This is a major red flag for project completion reliability.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Six of seven positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('excellent,' 'professional,' 'clean,' 'reliable,' 'recommend') with minimal specific detail, suggesting possible review inflation or template-based responses. However, the 2024 review and 2022 review provide more specific project details.
• RECENCY ISSUE: The most damaging review is from 2021 (3+ years old), but recent positive reviews (2023-2024) do not address whether completion issues have been resolved.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews emphasize reliability and follow-through, yet the 1-star review explicitly contradicts this with abandonment and rework requirements.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are uniformly positive, the documented project completion failure from 2021 combined with suspiciously generic phrasing in most positive reviews creates moderate uncertainty about true reliability; recommend requesting references and verifying completion practices before hiring.

Archer Plumbing has a generally positive track record across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, follow-up calls, and the ability to handle complex remodel and repair work. However, pricing is a notable concern — the 2019 review flagged $642 in labor for a warranty water heater replacement as expensive, and the 2004 reviewer explicitly stated the price felt high given an unresolved bathtub clog. Project completion is also mixed: one reviewer was left with a clogged bathtub and a referral card rather than a fix, and a post-payment drain leak required a callback — though the technician did return to correct it. The majority of reviews are significantly dated (2012–2019), with only one review from 2019 and none from the past several years, which substantially limits confidence in current performance.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2004-04-16 are nearly identical in content and phrasing, differing only by a minor spacing variation ('no longer is clogged' vs 'no longer clogged'). These appear to be the same review submitted twice. Only one instance was counted in dimension scoring to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is from April 2019 — over 5 years ago. No reviews from the past 3+ years are present. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• MAJORITY OF REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 5 YEARS: Six of ten reviews predate 2017, with two from 2012-2013 and two from 2004. These are given reduced weight in scoring.
• CALLBACK/INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: One reviewer (2004) was left with an unresolved bathtub drain issue and referred to a third party rather than having the problem solved. A post-payment leak was also found, requiring the technician to return. This negatively impacts both project completion and professionalism scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while enough reviews exist to calculate a score, the data is significantly outdated (most reviews are 5–11+ years old), a duplicate review was detected, and no recent reviews are available to confirm whether current service quality matches historical performance.