Find Nearby Plumbers In Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky

Cecil's earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight courteous, communicative, and punctual technicians like Andy Reilly and Josh James. Experience and technical knowledge are well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting accurate diagnostics, skilled repairs, and honest advice that avoids unnecessary upselling. Project completion scores slightly lower due to one notable instance (2020) where a toilet repair failed within days and required a callback, introducing a small but real reliability concern. Pricing is viewed positively by those who mentioned it, with reviewers describing good value and fair costs, though only four reviews addressed this dimension directly. Overall, the body of evidence paints a consistently positive picture, tempered by the small review pool and the presence of several older reviews.

• Small review pool of only 9 reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.
• Several reviews are significantly dated — one from 2014, two from 2019–2020 — which may not reflect current service quality. Reviews from the past 12 months (relative to mid-2025) are limited to one review from May 2024.
• One 3-star review (2020) explicitly describes a failed repair requiring a callback, which negatively impacts the project completion score.
• No strong fake review indicators detected — reviews contain specific technician names, job details, and varied language. Authenticity appears reasonable.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the scoring dimensions are well-supported by specific, credible review content, but the small sample size of 9 reviews and the predominance of older reviews (most predating 2023) mean the score should be treated as a directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment of current performance.

Burris Plumbing earns strong marks across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courtesy, friendliness, and clear communication across many years of reviews. Project completion scores well, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished on time, within the promised timeframe, and with no lingering issues. Experience is supported by specific accounts of skilled problem-solving, such as navigating a difficult propane stove installation and clearing tree roots from old irrigation pipe, as well as praise for quality workmanship on complex residential remodels. Pricing receives positive but limited mention, with a few reviewers noting competitive rates and no sense of being overcharged. The overall score is tempered by the fact that the majority of reviews are significantly older than one year, reducing confidence in how well they reflect current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 3 of 20 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2023). The majority of reviews span 2000–2022, with several dating back to 2002–2007. These older reviews may not reflect current service quality, staffing, or business practices.
• LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: 4 reviews are marked 'unknown' with no review text, and 1 review ('Very well.') provides no usable detail. These 5 reviews were excluded from dimension scoring.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN (MINOR): Three reviews dated 2007-02-13 and two dated 2007-02-14 share nearly identical submission dates and similarly generic, glowing language with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this clustering warrants mild caution. Confidence has been conservatively managed as a result.
• MULTIPLE PLUMBER NAMES: Reviews reference 'Dusty Burris,' 'Steve,' and 'Royce Burris,' suggesting this may be a family business with multiple operators over time. Scores reflect the business as a whole, but individual technician quality may vary.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the dimension scores are well-supported by explicit reviewer feedback, but the heavy skew toward very old reviews (many from 2000–2015) means the score should be treated as a historical indicator rather than a confident reflection of current performance.

The Drain Doctor demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, punctuality, and courteous staff across multiple reviews. Technical expertise is evident in complex problem-solving and thorough diagnostic work. However, project completion is tempered by one severe negative review detailing incomplete work, poor follow-up, and legal disputes, which significantly impacts overall reliability. Pricing appears fair with discounts offered, though one customer experienced unexpected additional charges. The contractor shows strong capability but inconsistent execution and follow-through on problem resolution.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2017-01-14) describes a catastrophic service failure including incomplete work, unresponsive follow-up, payment disputes, and legal action. This is a major red flag that contradicts the predominantly positive reviews and suggests serious reliability issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2013-2015 (4-6 years old). Only one recent review from 2017 exists, and it is highly negative. Limited recent data makes current performance assessment difficult.
• INCONSISTENCY: The stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and the 1-star nightmare scenario suggests either highly variable service quality or potential issues with follow-through on complex jobs.
• One review (2017-08-29) provides no usable data—it only states work is scheduled with no outcome information.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data, significant inconsistency between reviews, and one severe negative experience involving incomplete work and legal disputes that directly contradicts the positive narrative in other reviews.

GRS Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, cleanliness, and follow-through on jobs. Technical competence is evident in successful installations of complex systems (sump pumps, tankless water heaters, toilets). However, pricing is a significant concern: one detailed 2019 review explicitly criticizes hourly billing practices and perceived overcharging ($237 for 2 hours of work including a parts run), which substantially lowers the pricing dimension. The company's strengths in execution and professionalism are offset by documented pricing transparency issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: One critical review is from May 2019 (5 years old), but it contains specific, detailed complaints about pricing practices that cannot be dismissed. Two other reviews are from 2018-2019, suggesting limited recent data.
• PRICING VOLATILITY: The 2019 review provides explicit evidence of customer dissatisfaction with hourly billing and perceived overcharging. This is a material concern that outweighs the absence of pricing complaints in other reviews.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment. Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions (one highly negative, one positive but vague).

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews) and recency issues (60% of reviews older than 3 years). The pricing dimension is particularly unreliable, based on only 2 mentions with conflicting signals. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and project completion, but the documented pricing concerns from 2019 suggest potential ongoing issues that warrant direct inquiry before hiring.

Stewart's Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with punctual arrivals, responsive communication, and courteous service across multiple reviews. However, project completion shows a critical weakness: one 2017 review documents a failed repair (leak persisted after initial fix) with poor follow-up communication and an unresponsive mailbox. Pricing appears fair and transparent where mentioned, though billing documentation issues were noted in one review. Technical skill is evident in complex installations and problem-solving, but the completion failure significantly impacts overall reliability. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong professionalism and experience offset by concerning project completion gaps.

• CRITICAL: Review from 2017-07-25 documents incomplete work (leak not fixed on first visit) and severe communication breakdown (4 unanswered calls, full mailbox). This is a major red flag for project completion reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 3 of 5 reviews are from 2012-2015 (8-12 years old). Only 1 recent review (2023) and 1 from 2017. Limited current data on present-day performance.
• BILLING ISSUE: 2015 review notes customer never received invoice despite promise from office. Suggests administrative/follow-through gaps.
• POSITIVE BIAS: 4 of 5 reviews are 4-5 stars; the single 3-star review is significantly older (2017), which may not reflect current operations but indicates historical problems.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review from past 12 months) and a documented project completion failure in 2017 that was not adequately resolved. The score reflects historical performance more than current capability.

ProFetick Plumbing earns strong marks across most dimensions, with consistent praise for professionalism, punctuality, and technical knowledge across the majority of reviews. Pricing is mentioned favorably in four reviews, with terms like 'more than fair' and 'very reasonably priced,' supporting a solid but moderately-confident pricing score. Project completion scores are tempered by one notable negative review in which a job was apparently abandoned after a difficult crawl space assessment, with no follow-through and a dismissive referral to call 311 — a meaningful red flag for a dimension that carries the highest weight. Experience scores are generally positive, with multiple reviewers citing Buzz's ability to diagnose problems accurately and save customers money, though the sample size across all dimensions is small. The majority of reviews are from 2018–2021, meaning no reviews fall within the most recent 12-month window, which reduces overall reliability.

• ALL reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent review is from May 2021, over 3 years ago. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• One 1-star review (April 2019) describes a job that was not completed and poor follow-up communication, which meaningfully impacts the project completion score.
• Several reviews use generic praise ('great job,' 'highly recommend') with limited specifics, though enough reviews contain concrete details to avoid a fake review flag. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• Small total review count (9 reviews) limits statistical reliability across all dimensions. Scores should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and entirely outdated review set — all reviews predate 2022 — meaning the score reflects historical performance only and should not be taken as representative of current service quality.