Find Nearby Plumbers In Akron, Ohio

Dynamerican demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising skilled workmanship and timely job delivery. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by recurring communication failures, scheduling inconsistencies, and poor complaint handling—most notably documented in two detailed 1-star reviews from 2023 and 2022 describing unresponsiveness, missed appointments, and dismissive customer service. Pricing feedback is mixed, with some customers reporting fair value while others cite unexpected charges and price gouging. The company's performance has been inconsistent over its long history, with older reviews (pre-2015) generally more positive than recent ones.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8+ years old (2015 and earlier). Recent reviews (2022-2023) are predominantly 1-star with detailed complaints about communication and professionalism.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Four reviews contain only 'unknown' or 'NO' as text with ratings of 4-5 stars (dates: 2016-04-27, 2016-01-08, 2015-08-18, 2015-05-21, 2015-05-07, 2014-10-23, 2014-05-14, 1997-06-10 x2, 1900-01-01 x2). These appear to be placeholder or corrupted entries and reduce overall data reliability.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Multiple reviews mention scheduling failures, missed appointments, and follow-up issues (callbacks not returned, invoices not sent after 13 days). This pattern suggests systemic operational problems.
• CALLBACK AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention poor callback practices, unfinished work follow-ups, and lack of communication after service completion.
• COMPLAINT HANDLING FAILURE: Two detailed reviews document extremely poor responses to customer complaints, with dismissive and rude behavior from call center staff.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 39 usable reviews, the data is heavily skewed toward older reviews (pre-2015), and recent reviews (2022-2023) reveal serious systemic issues with communication and professionalism that contradict the historical positive trend. The presence of 4+ placeholder/fake reviews further reduces confidence. The score of 76.8 likely overstates current reliability due to age bias in the dataset. Prospective customers should prioritize recent negative reviews and request detailed written agreements before engaging this contractor.

Hartville Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and fair pricing, with many customers praising workmanship quality and reasonable rates. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by recurring communication failures, scheduling mishaps, and follow-up issues. Multiple reviews document problems with the office staff/scheduling system, missed appointments, and failure to return calls. Additionally, several customers reported incomplete diagnostics leading to repeated callbacks and unnecessary expenses. The company shows inconsistency: excellent field technicians (Cody, Corley, Paul) contrast sharply with administrative dysfunction. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show both strong work and persistent communication problems, suggesting systemic issues remain unresolved.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 5) document severe communication and scheduling failures, including missed appointments, unreturned calls, and lost customer information. This appears to be a systemic administrative problem, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN: Several customers report the company failed to diagnose root causes correctly, leading to repeated service calls and customer expense (toilet flushing power issue, roof vs. sink leak). This suggests diagnostic quality issues despite positive workmanship reviews.
• ADMINISTRATIVE OUTSOURCING: One 2024 review explicitly notes the company appears to have outsourced scheduling/administrative staff, which may explain communication breakdowns.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: The basement toilet clogging review appears twice (9/12/2024 and 8/9/2024) with identical text, suggesting either a data error or intentional resubmission.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 5 reviews contain no text, only ratings (all 5-star). These cannot be analyzed and reduce data quality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024, while older reviews (2018-2022) are predominantly positive. This suggests deterioration in service quality or operational changes.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One customer reports being 'ripped off' with a $300 valve replacement charge, while another praises fair pricing for similar work. Pricing transparency appears inconsistent.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and fair pricing (supported by 8+ mentions each), severe and recurring administrative failures significantly compromise overall reliability. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects a company with strong field technicians but broken internal systems; customers should expect quality work but prepare for scheduling frustration and potential communication issues.

Lewis Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous communication, and responsive service across multiple reviews. However, pricing concerns significantly impact the overall score—multiple customers flagged undisclosed travel fees ($25 per visit), markup on parts (e.g., $33 retail parts charged at higher rates), and labor rates that some felt were excessive relative to time spent. Project completion shows mixed results: while most jobs were finished promptly, two reviews documented incomplete follow-through (forgotten callback, misplaced work order) and one customer discovered the company lacked proper equipment for the job, requiring a second contractor. Technical skill is generally praised, though one major failure involved a toilet installation that failed within nine months due to improper bolt tightening.

• RECENCY BIAS: 13 of 18 reviews are older than 10 years (pre-2014). Only 1 recent review from 2024. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews contain only punctuation marks or single generic phrases ('Very smooth,' 'It went great,' '.') with 5-star ratings and no substantive detail. These appear to be placeholder or inflated reviews and reduce confidence in the overall rating distribution.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple customers (2011, 2011, 2024 reviews) explicitly state that travel fees and pricing structure were not disclosed upfront, suggesting a systemic communication problem around costs.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERN: Two reviews (2010, 2011) document incomplete work, forgotten callbacks, and misplaced work orders, indicating potential operational/organizational issues.
• EQUIPMENT LIMITATION: 2010 review reveals company lacked proper equipment (high-pressure jet system) for drain clearing, resulting in customer paying for inadequate service and later needing replacement contractor.

This score should be treated with caution due to heavy skew toward very old reviews (pre-2014), presence of suspicious placeholder reviews, and only one recent data point. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting signals: strong professionalism and responsiveness are offset by documented pricing transparency issues and project completion failures. The 2024 review provides the most detailed recent assessment and raises serious concerns about value proposition that are not fully captured in older reviews.

K&K Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous staff across multiple recent reviews. However, pricing concerns appear in 8 reviews, with customers reporting unexpectedly high labor charges, unnecessary upsells (expansion tank), and additional fees that competitors do not charge. Project completion is generally solid with timely work and quality output, though older reviews (2020-2021) document serious failures including broken valves, improper installations, and unresolved follow-up issues. Experience level is strong based on technical competency and problem-solving, but the company's track record shows inconsistency—excellent recent performance contrasts sharply with documented quality failures in prior years.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2022-2024 (recent), while most negative reviews are from 2019-2021 (older). This suggests either genuine improvement or selective review deletion. Treat recent positive trend cautiously.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2019, 2020, 2021, 2023) explicitly cite unexpectedly high labor charges and unnecessary add-ons (expansion tank, extra plumbing fees). This is a consistent complaint across different time periods.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews praising work quality and 2020-2021 reviews documenting broken valves, improper installations, and flooding. Suggests either staff turnover or inconsistent quality control.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CONFLICT: 2024 review documents argumentative phone interaction and company's defensive response to criticism, raising concerns about conflict resolution and customer relations.
• UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 2020 review describes 'unanswered emails and texts' and failure to make things right—indicates potential follow-through problems despite recent positive completion scores.

This WW Score of 74.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent reviews (2022-2024) are consistently positive and support higher scores, the company's documented history of pricing disputes, quality failures, and customer service conflicts (2019-2021) creates legitimate concern about consistency. The sharp improvement in recent reviews may reflect genuine operational changes, but insufficient time has passed to confirm sustained improvement. Prospective customers should specifically discuss pricing structure upfront and request references from recent jobs.

Jastal Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for courteous, friendly technicians who communicate well and show up promptly. Technical competence is solid with customers noting efficient problem-solving and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness—multiple reviews explicitly cite high costs, lack of transparency, surprise charges, and perceived gouging, particularly regarding estimates and labor rates. Project completion is generally reliable, though a few older reviews mention unresolved issues and refusal to honor callbacks without additional payment. The company shows strong interpersonal skills but struggles with pricing fairness and transparency.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 12 mentions of pricing issues across 54 reviews (22% negative pricing feedback). Multiple customers report feeling overcharged, surprised by costs, and perceive the company as taking advantage of customers, particularly elderly clients.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in Feb-Apr 2025 (recent), while critical pricing and service complaints are from 2019-2023. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older negative reviews are highly detailed and specific.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The Feb-Apr 2025 reviews show suspicious uniformity—nearly all 5-star, many with identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'friendly,' 'highly recommend'), minimal specificity, and multiple reviews with no text content. This suggests possible review manipulation or incentivized reviews.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: One 2022 review mentions technician offered 10% discount for 5-star review, suggesting possible review incentivization practices.
• FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: At least 2 reviews mention problems with callbacks and refusal to honor warranty/guarantee work without additional payment.
• DRIVER CONDUCT: One 1-star review (Dec 2024) reports dangerous driving behavior by company vehicle, raising safety concerns.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive, they show signs of potential manipulation or incentivization, and the clustering of generic 5-star reviews in 2025 contrasts sharply with detailed negative reviews from 2019-2023 that raise legitimate concerns about pricing practices and follow-through. The pricing dimension is particularly unreliable due to conflicting narratives—some customers report 'reasonable' pricing while others report significant overcharges. A score of 72.8 reflects the genuine professionalism demonstrated by technicians, but the pricing weakness and recency bias warrant skepticism about the overall reliability of this assessment.

Duke's shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is supported by multiple mentions of good communication, punctuality, and friendly demeanor, though one 2014 review describes poor attitude and lack of responsiveness to callbacks. Pricing feedback is conflicted: several reviews praise fair pricing and transparent quotes, but one 2016 review alleges significantly higher pricing than competitors. Project completion is undermined by a critical 2014 complaint about unfinished work and non-responsiveness to follow-up calls, despite other reviews indicating successful job completion. Technical skill is consistently praised where mentioned. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects these contradictions and is tempered by recency concerns—most positive reviews are 8+ years old, while negative reviews span 2014–2016.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 11 reviews are older than 8 years (2005–2013). Only 2 reviews from past 2 years. Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: Review dated 1900-01-01 with rating 5.0 and text 'NONE' is clearly invalid and excluded from analysis.
• CONFLICTING PRICING DATA: Review from 2016 alleges Duke's quoted $3,150 vs. competitors at $900–1,100 for same job, contradicting other reviews praising fair pricing. This suggests either pricing inconsistency or context-dependent value perception.
• UNRESOLVED CALLBACK ISSUE: 2014 review explicitly states owner promised follow-up work but customer called every two weeks with no response. This is a serious project completion failure that was never resolved in subsequent reviews.
• MINIMAL RECENT VALIDATION: Only 2 reviews from 2022–2023 provide current-state data. Confidence in overall score is limited by heavy reliance on outdated reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews (2022–2023) are positive, the majority of data is 8+ years old, and critical unresolved issues from 2014–2016 (non-responsiveness, pricing disputes, poor workmanship) lack follow-up evidence of correction. A score of 72.8 with MODERATE confidence reflects genuine mixed signals rather than strong reliability.