Find Nearby Plumbers In Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky

Five Star Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (84.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness. Project completion scores (83.1) reflect reliable job finishing and follow-through, though some negative reviews cite incomplete work or scheduling issues. Pricing (78.2) shows the most variability—while many customers praise fair rates and value, a notable subset reports overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, and estimates that don't match final bills. Experience (81.6) is consistently validated through technical competence and problem-solving, though a few reviews question diagnostic accuracy. The company operates across multiple locations with varying quality consistency.

• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY ACROSS LOCATIONS: Reviews span multiple geographic areas (San Antonio, San Diego, Florida, Oklahoma, etc.) with notably different service quality. Some locations show significantly more negative feedback than others, suggesting inconsistent management or training.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly mention overcharging, bait-and-switch pricing, estimates that don't match final invoices, and charges significantly higher than competitors for identical work. This is the most frequently cited complaint across the dataset.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, and poor responsiveness despite claims of 24-hour service. At least 12 reviews cite these issues.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Approximately 35 reviews rate 1-2 stars with specific complaints about dishonesty, rudeness, poor workmanship, or service failures. This represents ~7% of total reviews but suggests systemic issues beyond isolated incidents.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 25-30 reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('5 stars,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional and friendly,' minimal detail) with no substantive information. These cluster around specific dates (June 2025, June 2024, June 2023) suggesting possible bulk posting.
• HOME WARRANTY COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (8+) specifically cite problems when company is dispatched through home warranty programs, with complaints about rudeness, overcharging, and poor communication with warranty companies.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: Several reviews document jobs requiring multiple visits, unfinished work, or problems recurring shortly after repair, suggesting quality control issues.
• STAFF CONDUCT ISSUES: A few reviews mention rude technicians, aggressive driving behavior, and unprofessional communication, though these are less frequent than other complaint categories.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for overall service quality, but CAUTION is warranted regarding pricing transparency and consistency across locations—the pricing dimension (78.2) likely understates customer dissatisfaction due to the high volume of specific overcharging complaints that may not be fully captured in the scoring methodology. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show more positive sentiment than older reviews (2016-2020), suggesting possible recent management improvements, but the pricing and communication issues remain persistent concerns that warrant direct inquiry before hiring.

Shelly Toles Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by consistently high marks for professionalism (28 mentions, 85/100) and technical experience (18 mentions, 87/100). The company excels in punctuality, courtesy, communication, and workmanship quality across most reviews. However, project completion (78/100) and pricing (82/100) show more variability, with notable failures including job abandonment after payment, no-shows without callback, and incomplete work. While the majority of reviews are highly positive and recent (concentrated in 2024-2025), the presence of serious negative incidents—particularly the 2025 review detailing ghosting after $2k payment and the 2024 no-show incident—significantly tempers confidence in consistency. The company's strength lies in responsive, skilled service delivery, but reliability gaps in follow-through and accountability present material concerns.

• CRITICAL: Review dated 2025-05-10 reports job abandonment after $2k payment and complete non-responsiveness over two months. This is a severe project completion failure.
• CRITICAL: Review dated 2025-02-09 reports no-show appointment with delayed callback (1 hour late) and inability to reschedule for a week. Professionalism failure.
• SUSPICIOUS: Review dated 2024-11-13 alleges intimidating highway behavior by driver and passenger toward customer and child, with threat of legal action. This is a serious professionalism/conduct concern unrelated to plumbing work.
• QUALITY ISSUE: Review dated 2024-06-09 reports broken pipe during clog service with no repair completed. Project completion failure.
• QUALITY ISSUE: Review dated 2024-02-26 reports failure to follow up on quote via email. Communication/responsiveness failure.
• QUALITY ISSUE: Review dated 2023-06-10 reports pricey service and failure to cover drain during installation, causing drywall debris to clog drain. Workmanship concern.
• PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2024-06-09 batch contain no text or minimal text (4 empty/blank reviews), suggesting possible bulk positive review generation. Confidence in that batch slightly reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2024-2025 (recent), but older reviews (2013-2022) are uniformly 5-star with detailed positive feedback, while recent reviews show increased variability and serious failures. This suggests potential service quality degradation or increased volume straining operations.
• INCONSISTENCY: Company demonstrates both exceptional service (emergency response in <1 hour, thorough problem-solving, fair pricing) and serious failures (ghosting, no-shows, incomplete work) within the same recent timeframe, indicating inconsistent execution or possible staffing/management issues.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in the majority of engagements, recent critical failures in project completion (job abandonment, no-shows) and a serious conduct allegation significantly undermine confidence in reliability and accountability. The score reflects strong average performance, but customers should be aware of material execution risks, particularly for larger or time-sensitive projects.

ACE Plumbing, Heating and Air draws an overwhelmingly positive picture across a large review base, with the vast majority of customers praising specific technicians by name — particularly Aaron, Chappy, Gerry, Ryan, Manuel, Everett, Martin, Josh, and others — for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and responsive. Project completion scores are strong, with most reviewers confirming jobs were finished same-day or next-day, often under emergency conditions. Experience scores are elevated by repeated praise for diagnostic accuracy, technical depth, and creative problem-solving (e.g., Chappy saving a customer $8,000 by avoiding an unnecessary mini-split installation, Martin keeping a 34-year-old HVAC unit running). Pricing scores are pulled down meaningfully by a cluster of credible negative reviews citing hidden fees (credit card surcharges, travel time charges, truck fees), overcharging for simple jobs, and one reviewer being quoted $1,200 for a job another plumber did for $200. Professionalism is also modestly penalized by a recurring pattern of negative reviews citing rude staff, no-shows, failure to honor warranties, and at least one technician (Mike/Mohammad) accused of fraud and non-refund — these are serious flags that prevent a higher score despite the dominant positive signal.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews are near-identical in wording and posted on consecutive dates (June 6-8 and June 5-7, 2025). The Aaron review and the Martin/Aaron AC review each appear twice with different dates. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding and reduces confidence in the most recent review cluster.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A review posted by the company owner (Max Greenberg) praising his own technician Chappy is included in the dataset. While disclosed, this is a self-review and should carry zero weight in scoring. It has been excluded from scoring calculations.
• HIDDEN FEES / PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple credible negative reviews cite undisclosed fees including a 5% credit card surcharge, a $30 travel time charge, and a $10 truck fee not disclosed at booking. One reviewer was charged $470 to auger three drains with no upfront pricing disclosure. These are material pricing integrity concerns.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (Feb 2024) names a specific technician 'Mike (Mohammad Alzawahreh)' and alleges payment was taken via Venmo for unresolved work, refund requests were ignored, and calls were evaded. This is a fraud allegation and significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews across different time periods allege that ACE failed to honor stated warranties — including a lifetime water heater guarantee, a 30-day drain warranty dispute, and a callback that was never honored after a no-show emergency call.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, including one emergency no-call no-show and one technician who broke drywall and left without completing the job.
• RUDE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple reviews spanning 2018–2024 describe rude, dismissive, or hostile interactions with staff — including hang-ups, refusal to let customers speak, and disrespectful treatment of elderly customers. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from 2011 to June 2025. Reviews from 2011–2018 involve different technicians and possibly different ownership/locations. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily positive and dominate the dataset, but the negative reviews from this period (hidden fees, rude manager Scott, no-show) are credible and have been weighted accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple geographic areas including Sacramento CA, Bullhead City AZ, Toledo OH, Baltimore MD, Diamond Bar CA, Evansville IN, and others. It is likely that this dataset aggregates reviews for multiple unrelated businesses operating under the 'Ace Plumbing' name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a single-contractor assessment is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple geographically distinct and likely unrelated 'Ace Plumbing' businesses have been aggregated together — consumers should verify they are reading reviews specific to their local ACE Plumbing branch before making a hiring decision.

Hunter Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (85.2) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior. Project completion scores (83.5) reflect reliable job finishing and follow-through, though a small number of callbacks and incomplete work issues slightly temper this score. Pricing (79.8) is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though some customers report surprise at job-based rather than hourly billing and occasional concerns about permit/inspection charges. Experience (84.1) is well-documented with customers praising technical knowledge and quality workmanship. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a trustworthy, competent contractor with minor inconsistencies in communication responsiveness and pricing transparency.

• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) report difficulty reaching the company by phone, with unreturned voicemails and messages. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods (2007-2010 and 2019), suggesting a systemic communication weakness despite overall positive service quality.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Several reviews (2008-2019) indicate customers were surprised by job-based pricing rather than hourly rates, and one detailed complaint about a $350 'travel cost' charge and $75 overcharge for permit/inspection fees. This suggests pricing communication could be clearer upfront.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: A small number of reviews (approximately 4-5) report rework needed—leaking faucets, incomplete unclogging, poor toilet reseating—indicating occasional quality control issues, though these are exceptions in an otherwise strong record.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER: One 2019 review describes argumentative and defensive behavior from owner Brian regarding a $350 travel charge dispute, contrasting sharply with the overwhelmingly positive characterization of Brian in other reviews. This suggests potential customer service issues in specific dispute scenarios.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2006-2013 (approximately 60% of dataset). Recent reviews (2024-2025) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail, which could indicate selection bias or review filtering, though no clear evidence of fake reviews detected.

This WW Score of 82.1 is highly reliable, based on 176 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (68-127 mentions each). However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that communication responsiveness appears to be a genuine weakness despite strong service quality, and customers should clarify pricing structures and travel costs upfront to avoid disputes.

Economy Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior across 28 mentions. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and to specification across 22 mentions. Technical experience is solid with skilled diagnostics and problem-solving noted in 18 reviews. Pricing presents a mixed picture: while many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, two explicit complaints cite markups 100% above parts cost and quotes $400-500 higher than competitors, creating pricing concerns despite overall positive sentiment. The company's main weakness is occasional responsiveness delays during busy periods.

• Four reviews contain only punctuation marks or 'unknown' text (2017-07-12, 2017-05-04, 2016-06-11, 2015-09-01, 2014-06-09) — these provide no usable data but are rated 5.0, suggesting possible placeholder entries or data quality issues.
• Two reviews from 2006-02-10 are identical duplicates (both all-caps, same content, same date), indicating potential data entry error.
• Significant recency bias: 36 of 50 reviews are from 2013 or earlier (72% of dataset). Only 1 review from past 12 months (2022-02-13). This limits ability to assess current service quality.
• One negative review (2007-04-23, rating 2.0) describes poor installation quality, lack of cleanup, and unresponsive management — a notable outlier suggesting occasional service failures.
• Pricing complaints are concentrated in 2012 (two 3-star reviews) but absent from recent reviews, suggesting possible price adjustment or selection bias in recent customers.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias — 72% of reviews predate 2014, making current performance assessment unreliable. The score reflects strong historical professionalism and completion rates, but pricing concerns and one documented service failure indicate this is not a perfect vendor. Recent positive review (2022) is encouraging but insufficient to override age of dataset. Recommend requesting recent references before engagement.

Elite Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of punctuality, pleasant demeanor, and clear communication across all four reviews. Project completion is excellent, with all jobs finished thoroughly and to customer satisfaction. Pricing feedback is positive where mentioned, with transparent quotes and no hidden fees. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident in complex jobs like drain work and water heater maintenance. However, the sample size of only 4 reviews limits confidence; a larger dataset would strengthen reliability.

• Small sample size (n=4) — scores should be treated as preliminary indicators rather than definitive measures
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while not necessarily fake, this perfect rating distribution warrants caution and suggests potential selection bias
• Most recent review is from July 2024, but two reviews are from 2022-2023, indicating some recency gap in feedback
• No explicit mention of pricing in 2 of 4 reviews, limiting confidence in the pricing dimension

This WW Score of 89.3 should be treated as a positive indicator but with moderate confidence due to the small sample size and absence of any critical feedback; additional reviews would significantly strengthen the reliability of this assessment.