Find Nearby Plumbers In Cincinnati, Ohio

B&D Plumbing has a large and long-running review history with a strong majority of positive experiences, particularly around professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and covering no-shows, missed appointments without callbacks, poor workmanship (back-stabbing outlets, failed pipe repairs), and pricing disputes — prevents a high score across all dimensions. Pricing is a recurring concern in both directions: many reviewers praise fair or below-market rates, while others describe feeling overcharged for short visits or minimal work. Project completion is dragged down by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one instance of a repair failing repeatedly. The experience dimension scores highest due to numerous detailed accounts of skilled diagnostics and creative problem-solving, but is tempered by documented cases of substandard workmanship.

• 17 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use the name 'Tom' or 'Dale' specifically and appear to reference different geographic markets (Cincinnati/Ohio area vs. Baton Rouge/Louisiana vs. Riverside/California), suggesting this may be a shared brand name used by multiple independent operators. Scores may reflect mixed contractor quality rather than a single business.
• Multiple no-show and missed appointment complaints span from 2013 through 2024, indicating a persistent and systemic reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2021) explicitly states B&D is a middleman/sales company that subcontracts work to other plumbing companies, which may explain inconsistency in quality and pricing across reviews.
• One review (2025) alleges the company stole a commercial job from the reviewer — a serious ethics complaint that could not be verified but is noted.
• One review (2025) documents use of a fire-hazardous back-stabbing wiring method by what appears to be an electrical service call, suggesting possible scope confusion or a different trade operating under the same brand.
• The review base spans from 2004 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The majority of detailed negative reviews are concentrated in 2019–2025, suggesting possible quality decline over time.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, though a number of very short generic positive reviews ('Fantastic company.', 'A good company to work with.', 'Great customer service') with no specifics slightly reduce confidence in the positive signal.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of inconsistent service quality across what may be multiple operators sharing the B&D Plumbing brand name in different regions.

Nieman Plumbing earns strong marks for technical experience, with multiple reviewers noting they solved problems that 2–4 other plumbers could not, and demonstrated sophisticated diagnostic approaches including camera inspection and trenchless repair. Professionalism scores are dragged down meaningfully by a recurring pattern of poor follow-through on callbacks, unreturned phone calls, and undelivered estimates — a complaint that appears across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: several reviewers explicitly called out high hourly rates, steep trip charges, a $200 estimate fee, and misleading 'free estimate' advertising, though a counterbalancing group praised value relative to competitors. Project completion is solid when work is actually performed, but is penalized by a notable cluster of reviews describing abandoned follow-up, undelivered quotes, and at least one case where a repair failed and the company went silent. The span of reviews covers roughly 2000–2024, with the most recent substantive reviews (2019–2024) showing both continued strengths and the same persistent communication weaknesses seen throughout the history.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year; only a handful of reviews date from 2021–2024, limiting confidence in current performance. The most recent review is from September 2024.
• BLANK/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: At least 9 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', 'na', 'see above', 'Good!', or similarly non-informative text. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECURRING FAILURE PATTERN — COMMUNICATION & FOLLOW-UP: At least 7 distinct reviews across different years (2001, 2011, 2013 x2, 2013, 2019, and others) explicitly describe unreturned calls, undelivered estimates, or broken promises to follow up. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents, and materially reduces the project completion and professionalism scores.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE: Multiple reviewers cite specific dollar amounts ($200 estimate fee, $65 trip charge plus $125/hr, $309 for minor switch repair) suggesting genuine pricing transparency issues. The 'free estimates' claim on their website was directly contradicted by at least one reviewer.
• ONE SEVERELY NEGATIVE REVIEW (2014, rating 2.0) describes being left without a working toilet for three weeks, a failed repair that made things worse, and repeated no-shows. This is an outlier in severity but consistent with the communication failure pattern.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Despite a high proportion of 5-star ratings, the reviews contain sufficient specificity (named technicians, job details, dollar amounts, dates) to suggest they are genuine. The presence of multiple detailed negative reviews further supports authenticity.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Given the volume of communication/follow-up failures and pricing complaints spread across the review history, scores were held conservative rather than inflated by the majority of positive ratings.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over two decades and carries HIGH overall confidence in directional accuracy, but users should weight the persistent communication and follow-up failure pattern heavily, as it represents a documented systemic weakness rather than isolated incidents.

Quality Comfort Plumbing and Air has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Ryan and Josh — for being professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and thorough. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative reviews that describe incomplete work, unqualified technicians, a refusal to honor warranty obligations, and a deceptive pricing tactic involving an artificial 'limited time promotion' applied to an inflated base price. The project completion dimension is the most concerning area, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing jobs left unfinished, recurring failures after service, and a pattern of the company deflecting blame onto customers rather than correcting mistakes. Pricing received a moderate-to-poor score due to the credible and detailed allegation of price inflation before discounting, which undermines trust even among otherwise satisfied customers. Professionalism scores are buoyed by many positive mentions of individual staff but are tempered by the office management conduct described in at least two reviews.

• PRICING DECEPTION FLAG: One detailed 2024 review credibly alleges that the company inflates base quotes and then applies a 'limited time promotion' discount to create a false sense of savings — a practice corroborated by the reviewer obtaining two cheaper independent quotes. This is a significant trust concern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least three reviews describe work that was not completed correctly or at all — including a boiler repair left worse than before, an AC installation that damaged a coil and was never corrected, and a humidifier hookup that was never finished despite payment.
• UNQUALIFIED TECHNICIAN FLAG: One review explicitly quotes a technician admitting he 'wasn't qualified enough to fix it' — a serious workmanship and vetting concern.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL FLAG: One reviewer describes a new unit installation in 2020 that caused ongoing damage through 2023, with the company refusing to honor warranty obligations despite the damage being attributed to their installation error.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) skew negative, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2020. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and rating. Named technicians appear across multiple independent reviews. No significant fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews spanning 2014–2024 with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear negative trend in recent years and credible allegations of deceptive pricing and incomplete work that meaningfully offset the volume of older positive reviews.

RBS Mechanical has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise Rob and his team for friendliness, responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide variety of jobs. However, three detailed negative reviews — each describing a pattern of broken commitments, abandoned communication, and in one case seriously defective plumbing work — significantly weigh down the scores for professionalism and project completion. The sump pump review in particular is a severe outlier, describing multi-day failure, blocked contact, and a second contractor confirming amateur-level work, which directly undermines the experience dimension. The pattern of Rob cutting off communication when jobs go wrong is noted independently by multiple negative reviewers, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. Pricing scores remain relatively strong as most reviewers who mentioned cost found it fair and transparent, with one notable exception where a pricing question caused the contractor to disengage entirely.

• PATTERN WARNING: Three separate negative reviewers independently describe the same behavior — initial responsiveness followed by complete communication blackout when problems arise. This is a credible systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SEVERE WORKMANSHIP INCIDENT: The sump pump review (Dec 2023, 1-star) describes a multi-day project failure, blocked phone numbers, disconnected pipes, improper wiring, and a second contractor confirming the work was done at an amateur level. This is a significant red flag for the experience dimension.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are very brief, generic, and lack specific job details (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Great people. Great hearts.'). While not conclusive, the volume of short, undetailed 5-star reviews alongside detailed negative reviews warrants caution. One negative reviewer explicitly questions the authenticity of positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews fall within approximately the past 14 months (Oct 2023 – Oct 2024), so recency weighting does not significantly alter the analysis. The most recent negative review (Apr 2024) is within the past 12 months and describes the same communication-abandonment pattern seen in older negative reviews.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One review describes the owner berating an employee over the phone in front of a customer, which is a professionalism concern independent of the job outcome.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it reasonable statistical grounding, but the presence of a credible systemic pattern of project abandonment and communication blackout — corroborated by multiple independent reviewers — means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator and prospective customers should proceed with caution, particularly for complex or multi-day plumbing projects.

Copper Pipe Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on consistent positive feedback across 5 reviews. Professionalism is the most well-supported dimension, with every reviewer explicitly noting promptness, friendliness, cleanliness, and responsiveness — including a Christmas Eve emergency call. Pricing is also well-regarded, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out fair, reasonable, and transparent pricing, and one notable instance of the contractor honestly referring a customer elsewhere to save them $2,500. Project completion scores are solid but based on fewer explicit mentions of job follow-through and completion quality. Experience is supported by reviewers praising problem-solving ability, preparedness, and quality workmanship, though the small review pool limits confidence. Overall, the pattern is consistently positive, but the low total review count (5) means this score should be treated as directionally reliable rather than statistically definitive.

• Only 5 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability of the WW Score.
• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — while the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity warrants mild caution.
• Review dates range from 2017 to 2021 — no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date), meaning recent performance cannot be assessed. Business quality may have changed.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, callbacks, or unresolved issues — absence of complaints is not scored as a positive per scoring rules, but noted for transparency.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the consistent specificity of reviewer feedback, but should be treated with moderate caution due to the very small review pool (5 reviews) and the fact that all reviews are more than 3 years old with no recent data available.

Kuhnhein Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent positive feedback spanning multiple years. Professionalism is evidenced by punctuality, pleasant demeanor, and responsiveness across six reviews. Pricing receives high marks with seven mentions of fair, reasonable, and competitive rates. Project completion is well-documented with eight mentions of finished work, timely service, and follow-through on callbacks. Technical experience is confirmed through five mentions of quality workmanship, problem-solving ability, and long-term customer relationships. However, one 1-star review from 2019 citing rude customer service and unresolved problems introduces a significant negative data point that moderates overall confidence.

• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2015-07-02 and 2015-05-07) — these are unusable and suggest possible data quality issues
• One strongly negative 1-star review (2019-08-29) contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern; this is the most recent review and raises concerns about service consistency or potential service decline
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (9 of 11 usable reviews predate 2014); only one negative review is recent (2019), limiting ability to assess current service quality
• The positive reviews, while detailed, show some generic phrasing ('fantastic job,' 'great,' 'fantastic') but are sufficiently specific (equipment details, pricing comparisons, timeline specifics) to avoid classification as fake

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (most data is 8+ years old) and the presence of one recent negative review that directly contradicts the historical pattern; the WW Score reflects strong historical performance but may not accurately represent current service quality.