Find Nearby Plumbers In Cincinnati, Ohio

Rhino Handyman Services and its operators (Ted and Greg) generally receive strong praise across professionalism, workmanship, and project completion, with multiple reviewers highlighting punctuality, courteous behavior, and quality craftsmanship on diverse jobs. However, one detailed 3-star review raises a meaningful concern about workmanship quality on a cabinet painting job — noting brushed rather than sprayed finish, missed touch-ups, and collateral damage to other items — which tempers the experience and project completion scores. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, with one reviewer specifically noting cost savings versus alternatives, though the 3-star reviewer questioned value for money on an hourly-rate arrangement. A separate 1-star review flags a responsiveness failure with two unreturned calls, which negatively impacts the professionalism score. The majority of reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with only one review from 2021 and none from the past 12 months, reducing confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from 2021; the remaining reviews span 2013–2020. No reviews exist from the past 12 months. The WW Score may not reflect current service quality.
• THIN REVIEWS: Several reviews ('great job done', 'Very smoothly! Well-prepared, quick and professional', 'Great work! Highly recommended!!', 'New hardwood flooring, bathroom cabinet installation...') contain little to no usable detail and were excluded or minimally weighted in scoring.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One 3-star review (2020-08-01) provides specific, credible negative detail — brushed cabinet finish instead of sprayed, collateral damage to a waste bin, step, and door, and a general sense of wasted money. This is a meaningful data point and was weighted accordingly.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One 1-star review (2015-10-09) documents two unreturned calls over multiple days. A separate 5-star review (2016-02-19) also notes a call in November that was not returned. This pattern of communication lapses is flagged as a recurring concern, though it may be dated.
• OPERATOR INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference at least two different named operators — 'Ted' and 'Greg' — suggesting either multiple staff or a business that has changed personnel over time. Scores may reflect different individuals rather than a single consistent operator.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: While some reviews are generic, the mix of specific positive and negative detail, varied writing styles, and the presence of critical reviews reduces concern about systematic fake review inflation.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the age of most reviews, the presence of a credible negative workmanship complaint, documented responsiveness failures, and the fact that several reviews lacked sufficient detail to be scored — consumers should seek more recent references before hiring.

Crew Plumbing has a strong overall reputation for professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, politeness, and communication across many years of reviews. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable and transparent, with one reviewer specifically calling out the absence of hidden fees compared to larger competitors. Project completion scores are tempered by two notable negative data points: one reviewer described a botched toilet repair with poor follow-up and an unresolved callback situation, and another noted a missed scheduled visit, though the latter was partially forgiven given extenuating circumstances. Experience scores are solid, with several reviewers highlighting technical skill, problem-solving on difficult jobs, and meticulous workmanship, though the failed toilet repair in 2008 prevents a higher score. The score is further moderated by the fact that the vast majority of reviews are more than 10 years old, significantly limiting their reliability as a reflection of current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (10 out of 13) are older than 10 years, with the most recent cluster dating to 2020-2022. Only 3 reviews fall within the past 5 years. This score should be treated with caution as it may not reflect current business quality.
• NEGATIVE CALLBACK FLAG: One reviewer (2008) explicitly states the contractor caused a problem with a toilet, failed to resolve it properly, and required the customer to source incorrect parts at their own expense. This is a direct project completion and professionalism concern.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One reviewer (2005) reported the company never returned their call, indicating a responsiveness failure, though this is a single isolated and very old data point.
• SCHEDULING MISS: One reviewer (2007) noted Ted failed to show up on a scheduled day to complete drywall work, requiring an extra trip, though the reviewer considered it forgivable given prior emergency service.
• REVIEW AGE SKEW: Several reviews are from 2003-2008 and written in all-caps, which was common in early online review platforms. These are treated as authentic but carry very low recency weight.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. No suspicious repetition or coordinated language patterns were identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the strong volume of mentions across all dimensions, but is significantly undermined by the age of the review data — most reviews are over a decade old — meaning this score should not be used as a confident proxy for current contractor performance without seeking more recent feedback.

Geiler demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with most recent reviews (2024-2025) praising punctuality, friendliness, and knowledgeable technicians. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and scheduling reliability, with multiple reports of no-shows, rescheduling failures, and incomplete diagnostics. Pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews, with customers reporting overcharges, lack of transparency, and aggressive upselling tactics. The stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews and older 1-2 star reviews suggests either genuine service improvements or potential review manipulation. Conservative scoring reflects the serious completion and pricing issues despite strong professionalism ratings.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 24 of 60 reviews are 5-star with minimal or no detail (empty text fields, generic praise). Reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10, 2024-12-11 show clustering of 5-star ratings with sparse or identical phrasing ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend'). This pattern is inconsistent with the volume of detailed negative reviews from 2013-2015.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 38 of 60 reviews are from 2024-2025 (all 5-star or near-5-star). Only 22 reviews predate 2024. Reviews from 2013-2015 contain detailed, specific complaints about no-shows, rescheduling, overcharging, and poor customer service. The dramatic shift suggests either genuine improvement or review curation.
• SERIOUS PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUES: Multiple reviews document no-shows (2015, 2015, 2015), rescheduling failures (2015, 2015), incomplete work (2022 AC diagnosis), and failure to follow up (2021 boiler repair, 2024 collection issue). One customer reported being sent to collections for service never rendered.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Documented overcharges include $1700 bill vs. $1000 competitor quote (2022), $175 for 45-minute gas line reducer (2016), $89 diagnostic fee with no proper diagnosis (2022), $50 for 5-minute AC tune-up (2015). Multiple reviews cite lack of upfront pricing and aggressive upselling.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: 2024-06-09 review documents customer sent to collections for two service calls where NO SERVICE was ever received, with management refusing to resolve the account.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: 2022-02-06 review alleges technician 'Chris' quoted $509 after-hours but company claims no after-hours technician by that name exists—suggests either dishonesty or serious internal communication breakdown.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive and support a score in the 80s, the clustering of generic 5-star reviews, combined with detailed and specific complaints from 2013-2022 documenting no-shows, rescheduling failures, overcharging, and unresolved billing disputes, suggests either significant service improvement or potential review manipulation. The score of 74.2 reflects a conservative weighting that accounts for serious historical project completion and pricing failures; however, if recent reviews are authentic, the company may have genuinely improved. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes, confirm appointments 24 hours in advance, and consider the company's documented history of scheduling unreliability before committing to service.

Worly demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable staff and helpful customer service interactions. However, the business shows significant inconsistency: recent reviews (2020-2022) reveal serious failures in responsiveness, parts accuracy, and customer service, while older reviews (2006-2017) are overwhelmingly positive. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, with customers noting high costs and unfair return policies. Project completion data is limited but suggests occasional follow-through issues. The stark contrast between recent negative experiences and historical positive ones suggests either operational decline or potential data quality issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2006-2017). The two most recent reviews (2020, 2022) are highly negative, suggesting significant operational decline or service degradation.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Dramatic swing from 5-star praise to 1-star complaints suggests either major business changes or inconsistent service delivery across staff/time periods.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews mention high prices, wrong parts charged at return, and value concerns. This is a consistent negative thread.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: 2022 review explicitly states 'unresponsive to repeated calls' — a critical professionalism failure not present in older reviews.
• LIMITED PROJECT COMPLETION DATA: Only 2 mentions of completion-related issues; insufficient data to assess this dimension reliably.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal inconsistency in review quality and the recency of negative feedback. The score reflects historical strength but masks apparent recent operational problems; customers should prioritize the 2020-2022 reviews as more indicative of current service levels.

Joe Lay & Sons demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion issues, including multiple failed repair attempts, poor follow-up on callbacks, unresolved warranty claims, and property damage without accountability. Pricing concerns emerge in several reviews, with customers reporting unexpected charges and lack of transparency. The wide variance between 5-star and 1-star reviews suggests inconsistent service quality, possibly dependent on which technician is assigned.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) report catastrophic project completion failures: repeated failed repair attempts (5+ visits with no resolution), property damage (destroyed tub, tile, carpet, drywall holes), and refusal to repair damage caused by company
• CRITICAL: Severe communication and accountability issues documented in multiple reviews: customers unable to reach company, no return calls, promises of follow-up never honored, unresponsive to damage claims
• PRICING CONCERN: Several reviews report unexpected charges, lack of transparency in quotes, and customers feeling overcharged for incomplete or failed work
• PATTERN: Reviews from 2016-2018 show particularly high concentration of negative experiences with project completion and follow-up; more recent reviews (2019+) show improvement but still include failures
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between reviews praising individual technicians (Cole, DJ, Chad, Austin, Joe) and reviews criticizing office staff (Rob, receptionist issues) and company accountability
• LEGAL RISK: At least one review mentions legal counsel involvement due to property damage and non-response
• WARRANTY ISSUES: Multiple reviews indicate problems with warranty claim handling, miscommunication about approved work, and failure to resubmit claims as promised

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in individual interactions, the high frequency of serious project completion failures, communication breakdowns, and documented property damage without accountability represents systemic business problems that significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. The WW Score of 73.2 reflects this duality: strong individual performance metrics offset by critical failures in follow-through and customer accountability.

Hardy Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant strengths in professionalism and technical expertise, but notable weaknesses in project completion and pricing transparency. The company demonstrates strong punctuality and communication in positive reviews, with many customers praising the owner Bruce's friendliness and knowledge. However, a substantial number of negative reviews document serious issues including incomplete work, failure to honor callbacks, unexpected service charges, and poor follow-through on scheduled appointments. Pricing concerns appear frequently, with customers reporting surprise charges and fees not disclosed upfront. The data suggests inconsistent service quality and reliability.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews with identical or near-identical lengthy narratives (e.g., the shower leak story appears twice verbatim on 2024-06-09 and 2023-10-11). This suggests possible review manipulation.
• SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE CLUSTER: 20+ one-star reviews document serious issues including no-shows, incomplete work, billing disputes, poor communication, and refusal to honor warranties. These are detailed and specific, not generic complaints.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews praising 'Bruce' and harsh reviews describing unprofessional behavior, suggesting either multiple service providers with vastly different standards or significant operational inconsistency.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2022, 2020, 2019, 2018) report unexpected charges, service fees not disclosed upfront, and aggressive collection practices for disputed bills.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Numerous reviews document failure to return calls, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and lack of accountability when commitments are broken.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with generic praise or identical narratives, while detailed negative reviews span 2010-2022. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only punctuation marks or 'unknown' text, suggesting data quality issues.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence and caution. While the score of 72.8 reflects the mixed data, the presence of suspected fake reviews, significant billing/callback disputes, and a stark polarization between glowing and severely negative reviews suggests the true performance may be less reliable than the score indicates. The company appears to have serious operational and customer service issues that are not fully captured by the numerical score alone.