Find Nearby Plumbers In Cincinnati, Ohio

Bohmer Plumbing consistently receives praise for punctuality, politeness, and professionalism across multiple reviews, with several customers explicitly noting on-time arrivals and courteous behavior. Project completion scores are strong, with reviewers describing jobs finished same-day, thorough troubleshooting, and cleanup after work. Experience is supported by specific mentions of skilled problem-solving — notably repairing a faucet rather than replacing it unnecessarily, and proactively switching to higher-quality brass fittings mid-job. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews, with one customer noting the bill came in under expectations and another describing the contractor as 'reasonable,' though this dimension has fewer data points. The primary caveat is that the vast majority of reviews are significantly older than one year, with the most recent dating to late 2017, which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 11 reviews are older than 6 years, with the most recent from December 2017. These scores may not reflect the contractor's current quality, availability, or pricing.
• SMALL SAMPLE: Only 11 reviews total. While directionally useful, the dataset is limited and scores should be interpreted cautiously.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, and detail, which is a positive signal for authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to consistent positive signals across dimensions, but should be treated with caution given that all reviews are at least 6 years old and the total sample size is small.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, cleanliness, and courteous demeanor. Technical skill and workmanship quality are well-documented in three reviews highlighting successful project execution. However, project completion reliability is tempered by one significant cancellation incident where the company failed to honor a scheduled estimate appointment. The absence of any pricing feedback prevents assessment of value for money. Overall, the score reflects solid performance in professionalism and experience, offset by a notable reliability concern.

• One review (2019-07-25) describes a significant service failure: appointment cancellation with less than 24-hour notice after initially promising immediate availability. This directly contradicts the positive pattern in other reviews and raises concerns about consistency.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (4 of 5 reviews from 2019-2020). Only one review from 2023 provides recent performance data.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review—cannot assess value proposition or transparency.
• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical confidence despite moderate mention counts per dimension.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review in past 12 months), absence of pricing feedback, and one documented service failure that contradicts the otherwise positive pattern; the MODERATE confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about current reliability.

This plumbing company demonstrates strong professionalism, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness from named technicians (Jim Eckhoff and Eric). Project completion is solid, with evidence of thorough work and customer education. Technical expertise is evident through honest diagnostics and efficient problem-solving. However, pricing is a notable weakness: one review explicitly criticizes the $113/hour rate as excessive relative to work performed, while another praises fair pricing and savings—creating conflicting signals. All reviews are older than 2 years (2017–2018), limiting recency assessment.

• All four reviews are from 2017–2018; no recent data available to assess current performance or consistency
• Conflicting pricing feedback: one review praises honesty and savings, another criticizes hourly rate as too high—suggests pricing may be fair but perceived as high by some customers
• Small sample size (n=4) limits statistical reliability; confidence scores are capped at MODERATE

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of reviews; while the available data suggests competent, professional service with honest practices, the lack of recent feedback and limited pricing mentions prevent high-confidence assessment of current performance.

Plum Perfect receives consistently strong praise for professionalism, with multiple reviewers citing punctuality, courteous communication, and willingness to explain work in detail. Experience and workmanship are well-supported across many reviews, with specific mentions of problem-solving, diagnosing prior plumber errors, and thorough technical explanations. Project completion scores are solid, highlighted notably by a callback honor where no charge was applied for a recurring drain issue, though one 2-star review raises a significant concern about a multi-month period of unresponsiveness and unreturned calls. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable, with one reviewer noting the service is 'a bit pricey,' which tempers the pricing score slightly. The unresponsiveness complaint and the age of the majority of reviews (most predating 2022) reduce overall confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most clustering between 2008–2020. Only one review is within the past 12 months (2022). Current performance may differ significantly from what these scores reflect.
• One 2-star review (2016) explicitly describes a multi-month period of no callbacks or communication, which is a direct negative signal for professionalism and responsiveness. This was factored into the professionalism score.
• Several reviews use somewhat generic praise ('great job,' 'very professional') without granular detail, though enough specifics exist across the dataset to avoid a fake review flag. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• Small total review count (15 usable reviews) limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the data is directionally positive and supported by multiple mentions across all four dimensions, but the recency gap (most reviews are 3–15 years old) and a small total review count mean this score may not accurately reflect the contractor's current quality or availability.

Bert's Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers across different years explicitly praising friendliness, promptness, responsiveness, and courteous communication from staff including Doug, Karen, Chad, Greg, Kenny, and Mike. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, with one reviewer noting the final cost matched the quoted amount. Project completion scores are solid but tempered by one notable 2017 review in which a technician was unable to finish a faucet cartridge replacement, appeared to give up without researching a solution, and did not return to complete the job — a meaningful negative data point. Experience scores are supported by multiple reviews citing quality workmanship, accurate diagnosis, and long-term repeat use spanning decades, though the incomplete job in 2017 introduces a modest downward adjustment. The overall picture is of a well-regarded, long-standing local plumber with a strong reputation, slightly moderated by one documented failure to complete a job.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (March 2024). Several reviews date back to 2007–2014, which significantly limits the reliability of the score as a reflection of current performance.
• ONE USABLE DATA POINT EXCLUDED: The review with text 'unknown' (2014-06-18) was counted in total reviews but excluded from scoring as it contains no usable content.
• INCOMPLETE JOB FLAG: One review (2017) explicitly describes a technician who failed to complete a repair, did not research a solution, and did not return to finish — this negatively impacts the project completion score.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several older reviews (2011–2016) contain brief, non-specific praise with limited detail. While not conclusively fake, they contribute lower evidentiary weight to scoring.
• PERSONAL INFORMATION NOTE: One review includes what appears to be a reviewer's home address. This is flagged as a data privacy concern but does not affect scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to strong mention counts across all dimensions, but is significantly undermined by the fact that only 1 of 17 reviews is from the past 12 months, making it difficult to assess whether current service quality matches the historical record.

Blue Chip Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising technician demeanor, responsiveness, and technical skill — most notably a case where a technician identified a life-threatening blocked flue. Project completion scores are also solid, with reviewers consistently noting jobs were finished cleanly and thoroughly. However, the pricing dimension is meaningfully dragged down by a serious billing fraud allegation in which a customer reported being charged twice using a stored credit card photo, with no communication from the company. This single but severe complaint prevents a higher pricing score and introduces a trust concern that cannot be ignored. The overall score is further tempered by the small review pool and the fact that several reviews are more than four years old.

• SERIOUS BILLING CONCERN: One reviewer (1-star, 2022) explicitly alleged unauthorized double-billing using a photographed credit card, with no company outreach or explanation. This is a significant red flag for business integrity and directly impacts the pricing/trust dimension.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 7 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). Three reviews are from 2017–2019, which are more than 4 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: With only 7 total reviews, all scores should be treated with caution. A single negative or positive review has outsized influence on the final score.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small and partially dated review pool; the billing fraud allegation is a material concern that prospective customers should independently investigate before engaging this contractor.