Find Nearby Plumbers In Cincinnati, Ohio

Benjamin Franklin Plumbing presents a deeply split profile. Recent reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising named technicians like Casey, Ethan, Chris, and Chad for punctuality, communication, and professionalism. However, a significant cluster of 1-star reviews spanning 2017–2024 describes serious concerns including grossly inflated pricing, failure to return calls, botched repairs, unauthorized credit card charges, and technicians misdiagnosing problems. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with multiple reviewers citing quotes 2–5 times higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is also undermined by documented cases of abandoned follow-up, unresolved complaints, and at least one instance of a repair that failed within days and was not properly remediated.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe quotes that were 2x–5x higher than competitors for the same work (e.g., $600 faucet repair vs. $80 competitor fix; $3,999 water heater vs. $1,789 at Home Depot; $350 drain snake vs. $150 elsewhere). This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: At least three reviews describe the company failing to return calls, respond to emails, or deliver promised quotes over periods of weeks. One reviewer called six times without resolution.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One review describes a technician misidentifying a water heater phase type after installation, causing extended outages for an apartment building. Another describes a misdiagnosis that led to a $1,200 unnecessary repair recommendation. A third describes a repair that failed within 4 days.
• UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES: One reviewer alleges the company continued charging their credit card after cancellation of a service plan, requiring police involvement.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), while the majority of negative reviews are from 2017–2024. The recent positive trend may reflect genuine improvement, but the volume of older negative reviews is substantial and should not be discounted.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 14 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Several 5-star reviews from January 10, 2025 share the exact same date, which may indicate a batch submission. While individual review content varies enough to avoid a fake review flag, this clustering warrants mild caution.
• SERVICE FEE COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers object to a $49–$60 service/assessment fee being charged even when work was completed or when no meaningful service was rendered, suggesting a lack of pricing transparency at the point of scheduling.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of reviews with usable content, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor's performance appears to vary significantly by technician, time period, and job type, and the pricing dimension in particular reflects a well-documented and recurring concern that meaningfully drags down overall trustworthiness.

This contractor exhibits significant inconsistency in service delivery. While positive reviews highlight strong technical expertise, quality workmanship, and fair pricing (particularly from 2012-2014), multiple recent reviews (2019) document severe professionalism failures including no-shows, unresponsiveness to quote requests, and hostile customer interactions. Project completion is mixed—some projects finished on time and on budget, but others experienced delays and scheduling issues. The contractor's experience and technical skill are evident in detailed positive reviews, but professionalism and reliability have deteriorated markedly in recent years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2012-2014 (7+ years old). Most recent reviews (2019) are uniformly negative, suggesting significant service degradation over time.
• MULTIPLE NO-SHOWS: Three separate reviews explicitly mention no-shows or failure to appear (2019, 2014, 2019), indicating a systemic reliability problem.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document failure to send quotes, no return calls, and unresponsiveness despite multiple contact attempts (2019 reviews).
• HOSTILE CUSTOMER SERVICE: One 2019 review documents rude behavior and refusal to provide estimate copy, with owner allegedly telling customer to 'call your attorney'—highly unprofessional.
• INCOMPLETE ESTIMATES: One review documents estimate missing 80% of required work and non-compliant electrical specifications (residential quoted for commercial).
• SUBCONTRACTOR RELIABILITY: One 2014 review notes hired plumber/electrician (Mendez) was unreliable and caused project delays.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews marked 'unknown' with only ratings (no text) reduce data quality and may indicate incomplete or placeholder entries.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the contractor demonstrates genuine technical competence based on detailed positive reviews from 2012-2014, the recent pattern of severe professionalism failures (2019) suggests current service quality may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. The WW Score reflects historical performance, but recent reviews suggest the contractor may no longer be reliable for new projects.

Schlueter Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer experience with stark contrasts between highly satisfied and severely dissatisfied clients. Positive reviews (7 five-star ratings) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, fair pricing, and technical competence. However, four one-star reviews reveal critical failures: incomplete work with unauthorized charges ($3,000 charged without completion), repeated no-shows (6 missed appointments), loose faucet installations that damaged pipes, and defensive customer service that resulted in firing a customer. The most recent negative review (June 2024) indicates ongoing quality and service issues. While the company demonstrates strong capabilities when executing work, reliability in scheduling, installation quality, and financial integrity are significant concerns that substantially lower overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Unauthorized charge of $3,000 on customer credit card without work completion (Nov 2022 review) — potential fraud or severe billing practice violation
• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows — customer reported 6 scheduled appointments with 5 instances of discovering cancellation only after calling an hour past appointment time (June 2019)
• Quality control issue: Multiple reports of loose faucet installations that failed or caused pipe damage; defensive manager response when customer complained
• Customer service failure: Company 'fired' customer for complaining about defective work, indicating poor conflict resolution
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2019; most recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022) are predominantly negative or mixed, suggesting service degradation over time
• Inconsistency: Stark polarization between 5-star and 1-star reviews with little middle ground suggests either highly variable service quality or potential review authenticity issues

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization and serious red flags including unauthorized charges, chronic no-shows, and quality control failures in recent reviews; while the company demonstrates technical competence when work is completed, systemic issues with reliability, integrity, and customer service significantly undermine confidence in overall trustworthiness.

Lonneman Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with multiple reviews praising quick response times, skilled workmanship, and problem-solving ability. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns: four separate reviews explicitly cite price gouging, hidden charges, or quotes that do not match final invoices. This pricing issue appears systemic rather than isolated. Positive reviews emphasize fair pricing, but negative reviews are more detailed and specific about overcharging incidents. The company demonstrates competence in execution but lacks transparency and fairness in financial dealings.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Four of ten reviews (40%) explicitly mention overcharging, hidden fees, or quote-to-invoice discrepancies. This is a critical red flag suggesting a pattern of pricing deception rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2016-2018 (older than 6 years). The most recent detailed review (2024) is positive, but negative pricing complaints span 2016-2020, suggesting this may be a longstanding issue.
• REVIEW POLARIZATION: Strong bimodal distribution—five 5-star reviews and four 1-star reviews with only one 4-star. This polarization suggests either highly variable service quality or customer selection bias.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW SPECIFICITY: Negative reviews contain specific dollar amounts ($500 overcharge) and detailed complaints about estimate practices, lending them credibility. Positive reviews are more generic in praise.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant pricing concerns that directly contradict positive service reviews; the WW Score reflects technical competence but masks a serious trust issue around financial transparency that may outweigh workmanship quality for cost-conscious customers.

G&R Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising punctuality, knowledge, and quality workmanship. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns that appear across 22 reviews spanning multiple years. Customers consistently report charges 2–7x higher than market rates for routine work, with particular patterns of overcharging seniors and vulnerable customers. While professionalism scores reasonably well (72), the pricing dimension (38) significantly drags down the overall WW Score. The company shows capability but exhibits troubling business practices around transparency and fair pricing.

• CRITICAL: Systematic price gouging pattern documented across 22 reviews (37% of total). Multiple customers report charges of $800–$1,200+ for routine 15–30 minute jobs (toilet handle fixes, disposal replacements, faucet tightening). Industry-standard comparisons consistently show G&R charges 2–7x market rates.
• VULNERABLE POPULATION TARGETING: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention elderly customers (ages 75–88) being charged exorbitant fees. One detailed account describes a 75-year-old woman charged $8,000 for well pump work that should have cost $2,000–$4,000, with subsequent county inspection violations.
• LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews cite absence of written estimates, failure to disclose service call charges in advance, and no product options provided. One customer noted Ohio Consumer Protection Laws were violated.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews describe incomplete or ineffective repairs (toilet leaks recurring within hours, well work failing county inspection, water heater reset needed after G&R service). One review documents well water contamination (bacteria >200 ppm vs. 5 ppm standard) following G&R work.
• NO-SHOW/COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 2 reviews document missed appointments with no callback, contradicting otherwise strong punctuality claims.
• DEFENSIVE RESPONSES: Multiple reviews describe angry or dismissive responses when customers questioned pricing. One review notes company 'hiding behind attorney' during dispute resolution.
• RECENCY: Pricing complaints span from 2012–2025, indicating this is not a historical issue but an ongoing pattern. Recent 2024–2025 reviews still contain pricing concerns alongside positive service comments.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: 8 reviews contain no text (blank/unknown), and several 5-star reviews from 2021–2022 are extremely generic ('wonderful,' 'great job') with minimal detail. However, negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, suggesting authenticity disparity rather than fake positive reviews.
• INCONSISTENT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE: Same company receives both 5-star 'honest and fair' reviews and 1-star 'price gouging' reviews for similar work types, suggesting pricing may vary dramatically by customer profile.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in execution, but the pervasive and well-documented pricing concerns (22 mentions across 13 years, including regulatory violations and vulnerable population targeting) represent a material business practice issue that significantly undermines trustworthiness. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates and seek competitive quotes before engaging this company.

Hensley Plumbing shows a mixed track record across its small review set. Positive reviews highlight responsiveness, friendliness, and reasonable pricing, with one reviewer specifically praising cost-conscious problem-solving. However, two serious negative reviews significantly drag down the scores: one describes a technician leaving a job site covered in waste and never returning, and another describes a drain issue recurring within a month with no follow-through from the company. These are direct, specific complaints about both professionalism and project completion that cannot be dismissed. The overall picture is of an inconsistent service provider with genuine strengths but documented failures in follow-through and workmanship quality.

• Review spread spans 2014 to 2023 — nearly a decade. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023), meaning most data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• The two most recent reviews (2023) are both 5-star and relatively brief with limited specifics, which slightly raises generic praise concerns, though they are not identical in phrasing.
• The 2018 review describing a technician leaving a job site unsanitary and never returning is a serious professionalism and project completion failure that is highly specific and credible.
• The 2014 review describing a recurring drain problem and dismissive customer service response is a direct project completion failure, though its age reduces its weight in scoring.
• With only 6 total reviews spanning 9 years, the sample size is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about consistent service quality.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 6 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with the majority of data being more than 3 years old, making it a low-reliability signal of current contractor performance.