Find Nearby Plumbers In Cincinnati, Ohio

Brueggemann Plumbing shows a generally positive track record across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple reviewers noting prompt arrival, courteous behavior, and competent workmanship across a variety of jobs. However, one serious negative review from 2014 alleges that work was not completed despite payment, which meaningfully drags down the project completion score and raises a concern about accountability. Pricing is a mixed signal — two reviewers explicitly praised affordability and reasonable rates, while two others felt the cost was too high relative to the simplicity of the work performed. The experience dimension is supported by several specific, detailed accounts of skilled technical work including pipe replacement, water heater installation, and copper line routing. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with real strengths but notable inconsistencies that prevent a higher rating.

• One review (2014-10-30, 1-star) explicitly alleges non-completion of work and payment without service — this is a serious project completion flag and was weighted accordingly.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most dating from 2008–2017. Only one review is from 2017 and none are within the past several years. Recency confidence is LOW — this score may not reflect current performance.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.
• Two pricing complaints (overcharging for minor work) offset the positive affordability mentions, resulting in a conservative pricing score.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the age of the review data — most reviews are 7–16 years old — and the presence of one serious unresolved complaint alleging non-performance; prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

Archer Plumbing has a generally positive track record across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, follow-up calls, and the ability to handle complex remodel and repair work. However, pricing is a notable concern — the 2019 review flagged $642 in labor for a warranty water heater replacement as expensive, and the 2004 reviewer explicitly stated the price felt high given an unresolved bathtub clog. Project completion is also mixed: one reviewer was left with a clogged bathtub and a referral card rather than a fix, and a post-payment drain leak required a callback — though the technician did return to correct it. The majority of reviews are significantly dated (2012–2019), with only one review from 2019 and none from the past several years, which substantially limits confidence in current performance.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2004-04-16 are nearly identical in content and phrasing, differing only by a minor spacing variation ('no longer is clogged' vs 'no longer clogged'). These appear to be the same review submitted twice. Only one instance was counted in dimension scoring to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is from April 2019 — over 5 years ago. No reviews from the past 3+ years are present. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• MAJORITY OF REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 5 YEARS: Six of ten reviews predate 2017, with two from 2012-2013 and two from 2004. These are given reduced weight in scoring.
• CALLBACK/INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: One reviewer (2004) was left with an unresolved bathtub drain issue and referred to a third party rather than having the problem solved. A post-payment leak was also found, requiring the technician to return. This negatively impacts both project completion and professionalism scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while enough reviews exist to calculate a score, the data is significantly outdated (most reviews are 5–11+ years old), a duplicate review was detected, and no recent reviews are available to confirm whether current service quality matches historical performance.

Bob and Roy's Rooter receive consistently strong praise across professionalism, responsiveness, and willingness to go above and beyond, including same-day and weekend emergency service. Multiple reviewers highlight punctuality, friendly communication, and small courtesies like wearing shoe booties. However, one detailed 1-star review significantly weighs down the scores across all dimensions: a customer reported a misdiagnosed sewer gas problem, an $841.89 charge for a toilet replacement that did not resolve the issue, refusal to issue a refund, and a recommendation for an additional $600 smoke test that a competitor performed for $435 with no findings supporting Bob's diagnosis. This review raises legitimate concerns about diagnostic accuracy, pricing transparency, and follow-through on problem resolution. Because this negative review is specific, detailed, and credible, it cannot be dismissed and appropriately reduces confidence in project completion and experience scores.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (2016-03-24) describes a failed diagnosis, overcharging, incomplete problem resolution, and refusal to refund — this is a serious flag for both project completion and experience dimensions.
• The majority of reviews are older than 5 years (most from 2014–2019), with no reviews from the past 12 months. Recency is a concern and limits confidence in current service quality.
• Several 5-star reviews are somewhat generic in praise (e.g., 'fast and efficient,' 'very professional') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.
• Small total review count (8 reviews) limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool, predominantly older reviews, and one credible and detailed negative review that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive pattern — the score should be treated as a reasonable signal but not a definitive assessment of current service quality.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—some customers praise punctuality and responsiveness, while others report ignored callbacks and defensive behavior. Pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple complaints about double-charging (service fee plus hourly minimum) and perceived overcharging for minimal work, though some customers found pricing fair or better than quoted. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with two detailed 1-star reviews documenting incomplete work (water heater not elevated, valve installed backwards) and failure to return for corrections despite promises. Technical skill appears solid when work is completed properly, but execution and follow-through are unreliable. The company's age (reviews span 2009–2014) limits recency assessment.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2011, 2012) document serious project completion failures—improper installation, ignored callbacks, and defensive responses to complaints. These are not isolated incidents but pattern evidence.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are 10+ years old (2009–2014). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• PRICING STRUCTURE COMPLAINT: Multiple reviews cite frustration with dual charging model (service fee + hourly minimum). This appears to be a structural business practice, not an isolated incident.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least two reviews explicitly mention ignored callbacks and delayed responses, suggesting systemic communication issues.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK DETAIL: Several 5-star reviews are generic (e.g., 'very professional, very nice') without specific examples, though they are not identical enough to suggest fabrication.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (8 reviews) and age (all 10+ years old), but the pattern of serious project completion failures and pricing complaints in detailed negative reviews is credible and concerning. The contractor's current performance may differ significantly from this historical data.

All four reviews speak positively across every dimension, painting a consistent picture of a highly capable and reliable contractor. Professionalism is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, clear communication before and during jobs, and a pleasant demeanor. Pricing is explicitly praised in three reviews, with mentions of honored quotes, below-market estimates, and no surprise charges. Project completion is strong across the board — reviewers highlight jobs finished on time, no price increases even when work extended, and yard restoration after excavation. Experience scores are also high, with reviewers specifically noting Jason's ability to tackle complex sewer and water line jobs that other contractors refused or overpriced, as well as praise from a city inspector.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability of all scores.
• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — while the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity warrants caution.
• Three of the four reviews are dated within a 7-month window (Jan–Jun 2023), with one from Dec 2022 — recency is generally good, though the dataset is too small to draw strong trend conclusions.
• No negative or mixed reviews present — it is unknown whether this reflects genuine excellence or a curated/incomplete review set.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be treated as a promising early signal rather than a definitive assessment — significantly more reviews are needed before high confidence can be assigned.

American Water and Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians by name in multiple reviews. Pricing is called out as 'extremely fair' and customers expressed satisfaction with overall cost and warranty terms. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs were finished thoroughly, on time, and with proper cleanup including removal of old equipment. Technical experience is reflected in reviewers' confidence in the work quality and system explanations provided. However, the total usable review pool is very small and spans nearly two decades, which significantly limits reliability.

• Only 4 of 6 reviews contain usable content — 2 reviews ('unknown' and '.') are effectively blank and were excluded from scoring.
• Review recency concern: Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2023). One usable review is from 2023, one from 2004. The 2004 review is over 20 years old and was given reduced weight.
• Total usable review count is very low (4 reviews). Scores are directionally positive but cannot be considered statistically reliable.
• All rated reviews are 5-star, which warrants mild fake-review awareness caution, though the reviews do contain specific names, details, and varied language that reduce this concern somewhat.

This WW Score is based on only 4 usable reviews spanning a wide date range, making it directionally informative but statistically unreliable — prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before drawing firm conclusions.