Find Nearby Plumbers In Cincinnati, Ohio

Jim the Plumber demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across 22 reviews. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion and pricing: three recent 1-star reviews (2021–2023) document serious failures including property damage, incorrect work requiring callbacks, and overcharging for parts and labor. Pricing inconsistencies appear in multiple reviews, with customers reporting unexpected cost overruns and bills for mistakes the company created. While older reviews (2011–2017) are overwhelmingly positive, the pattern of recent failures and unresolved billing disputes substantially undermines overall reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2011–2017). Three recent 1-star reviews (2021–2023) describe serious failures: property damage from incorrect work, water damage caused by improper plumbing modifications, and refusal to fix problems without additional charges.
• PRICING RED FLAGS: Multiple reviews mention unexpected cost overruns (e.g., $250 estimate became $495; customer charged for parts they broke and hardware store trips). Pattern suggests inadequate upfront measurement and transparent quoting.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Three detailed 1-star reviews document incomplete/incorrect work: broken water valve line causing house-wide water shutoff, damaged drywall left unrepaired, roof boot damaged by improper pipe work causing kitchen leak.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One 1-star review (2016) reports complete non-response to service request for over a week despite A-rating on Angie's List.
• RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: One 1-star review (2023) reports 2-week wait for urgent plumbing issue, contradicting claims of emergency availability in older reviews.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW AGE BIAS: Stark contrast between pre-2018 reviews (nearly all 5-star, generic praise) and post-2020 reviews (detailed 1-star complaints with specific damages). Older reviews lack specificity; newer reviews are highly detailed and credible.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 reflects mixed data, the temporal pattern is concerning: recent reviews (2021–2023) document serious failures in project completion and pricing integrity, while positive reviews cluster in 2011–2017 and lack specificity. The company's reliability appears to have declined significantly. Customers should prioritize the recent 1-star reviews as more predictive of current service quality than the older 5-star reviews.

Duff Plumbing demonstrates solid technical expertise and workmanship quality, with multiple reviews praising their problem-solving ability and skill level. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by persistent communication failures—multiple recent reviews (2023-2024) document unresponsiveness to callbacks and failure to provide estimates. Project completion is mixed, with some jobs completed on time and to specification, but recent cases show abandoned follow-up. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, though limited data on this dimension. The company shows a troubling pattern of declining responsiveness in recent years compared to older positive reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2006-2019). The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are both 1-star ratings citing non-responsiveness and failure to follow up.
• COMMUNICATION CRISIS: Multiple explicit mentions of failure to return calls, no callback after one week, and failure to provide estimates despite promises. This is a critical pattern affecting professionalism and project completion scores.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Four reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings (2016, 2015, 2014) lack any substantive detail and appear potentially fabricated or placeholder entries. These were excluded from detailed scoring but inflate the positive rating count.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between detailed positive reviews from 2006-2019 and recent negative experiences, suggesting possible operational decline or staffing changes.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 2 reviews explicitly mention pricing/cost. One mentions fair pricing, one mentions zero cost (possibly a goodwill gesture). Insufficient data for confident pricing assessment.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the calculated score is 72.8, the company's recent trajectory is concerning—the two most recent reviews are both 1-star with serious responsiveness issues, suggesting the score may overstate current reliability. The presence of undated 'unknown' reviews and the dramatic quality decline over time indicate this score reflects historical performance more than current service standards. Prospective customers should prioritize the recent negative feedback over the older positive reviews.

Wake Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and diagnostic ability. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns—one customer reported a $500 quote for a simple faucet replacement that cost $80 elsewhere—and critical project completion failures, including a major basement project that was abandoned after one month and three reschedules due to permit issues. While smaller service calls are handled well, larger projects show concerning follow-through problems. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects solid execution on routine work but substantial red flags on pricing transparency and major project management.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2019-09-30 are identical word-for-word (basement project cancellation). This appears to be a duplicate submission rather than fake praise, but reduces unique data points.
• PRICING CONCERN: Significant disparity between quoted price ($500) and actual market value ($80) for faucet replacement suggests potential overcharging or poor pricing practices.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: Major basement plumbing project abandoned after one month with three reschedules and failure to obtain required permit. This is a critical failure for a professional contractor.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are 4+ years old (2019-2020). Only 1 review from 2024 and 1 from 2022. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• CALLBACK HONORED: One review (2019-12-10) explicitly mentions Wake returned to fix customer's DIY mistake at reasonable price, showing positive follow-through on that instance, but this is outweighed by the major project abandonment.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from past 2 years), a critical project abandonment incident, and serious pricing transparency concerns that directly contradict positive service reviews. The company appears competent on small repairs but unreliable on larger projects and pricing.

True Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of professional demeanor, cleanliness, and reliability across multiple reviews. However, the score is significantly impacted by serious project completion concerns: one recent review (2024-10-07) describes incomplete work requiring a second licensed plumber, and a 2019 review explicitly warns of abandoned jobs. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, and technical skill is evident but not extensively documented. The recency of the negative completion issue (October 2024) is particularly concerning and outweighs older positive reviews.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews explicitly cite project completion failures — one from 2024 (recent) describing incomplete work and yard damage, and one from 2019 describing abandoned jobs. These directly contradict the positive narrative in other reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2016–2018). The most recent negative review is from October 2024, suggesting potential ongoing issues.
• LICENSING/PERMIT ISSUE: October 2024 review states the company lacked proper licensing and permits, which is a serious red flag for legitimacy and legal compliance.
• PATTERN INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (many generic: 'fantastic,' 'excellent') and severe 1-star reviews citing non-completion and damage. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several positive reviews use vague language ('fantastic,' 'excellent service') without specific details, which reduces confidence in their reliability.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism appears solid, the documented project completion failures (especially the recent 2024 incident) and licensing concerns significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. The age of most positive reviews and the stark contrast with recent negative feedback suggest this score may not reflect current service quality. Recommend requesting references and verifying licensing before engaging.

DuPont Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between highly satisfied long-term customers and severely dissatisfied recent clients. Professionalism is the weakest dimension (58/100), driven by documented communication failures, poor dust remediation practices, and unresponsiveness to complaints. Pricing receives strong marks (82.5/100) with multiple mentions of fair and honest rates. Project completion is concerning (65/100) due to two explicit cases of incomplete or damaged work requiring costly remediation. Experience is moderate (72/100)—while some reviews praise capability and quality, two recent incidents involved inexperienced workers causing significant problems. The company's performance appears to have deteriorated or become inconsistent in recent years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three oldest reviews (2018–2019) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise. Two most recent reviews (2021–2024) are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints. This temporal pattern suggests either declining service quality or inconsistent execution.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: Two separate incidents (Feb 2024 and May 2021) involved young/inexperienced workers causing major problems (dust damage, drain damage). Both reviews explicitly mention lack of oversight and poor worker selection.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Feb 2024 review documents only 25% phone answer rate during business hours. May 2021 review documents refusal to communicate and threat of litigation instead of resolution.
• UNRESOLVED DISPUTES: May 2021 review indicates year-long dispute with $700+ in remediation costs. Feb 2024 review indicates cleanup still incomplete over one week later.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Positive reviews emphasize 'always shows up same day' and 'never disappoints,' but negative reviews document delayed callbacks and unresponsiveness. This suggests inconsistent service delivery.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 4 of 7 reviews are from 2018–2021 (older than 12 months). Only 2 recent reviews (2024, 2021), both negative. Limited recent positive data.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the MODERATE confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the stark polarization between older generic praise and recent detailed complaints, combined with documented quality control failures and communication breakdowns, suggests the score may mask serious underlying issues. The company's recent performance appears significantly worse than its historical reputation. Prospective customers should heavily weight the 2024 and 2021 negative reviews and request experienced plumbers explicitly.

The contractor has a strong base of positive reviews praising technical knowledge, responsiveness, and fair pricing, with multiple reviewers highlighting honest billing practices and prompt arrival. However, the professionalism score is significantly dragged down by two serious concerns: a detailed 2020 review documenting threatening communication, price gouging behavior, and abandoned work, as well as a 2013 review from a female customer who felt uncomfortable with inappropriate remarks made during an estimate visit. Project completion is the weakest dimension due to the 2020 review describing a job that took three months beyond the agreed timeline and was ultimately left unfinished, which is a severe outcome that heavily penalizes this category. Pricing scores moderately well overall, as most reviewers praised fair and transparent rates, but the disputed $124 charge and daily late fee threats in the 2020 review introduce meaningful concern. Experience scores highest, with consistent praise for technical skill and problem-solving across multiple jobs and years.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Two reviews are dated from the year 2000 and one from 2002, making them over 20 years old. These carry minimal relevance to current business practices and were given very low weight.
• The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2020, with the most recent substantive review (2020) being the most negative one on record — this recency pattern is a meaningful concern.
• The 2020 review describes serious misconduct: threats of legal action, refusal to complete contracted work, a disputed charge for a callback on a prior repair, and hostile communication including 'we run this show pal' and a laughing emoji in response to a formal notice. This is not a minor complaint.
• The 2013 review from a female customer documents inappropriate gendered remarks during an estimate visit, which is a professionalism and conduct concern independent of technical quality.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating, and negative reviews are specific and credible.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low, most positive reviews are several years old, and the most recent detailed review documents serious misconduct that meaningfully offsets the otherwise favorable historical record.