Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbus, Ohio

Accurate Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on a very large review pool spanning over two decades, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and responsive scheduling. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable, with several reviewers explicitly noting competitive or lower-than-expected costs, though a handful of negative reviews cite overcharging, lack of itemized billing, and unexpected cost escalation. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: while most jobs are described as completed satisfactorily, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews documents no-shows, abandoned work, failure to return calls, shoddy installations requiring rework, and at least one instance of a ceiling collapse caused by a plumber error. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but offset by recurring complaints about misdiagnosis, incorrect parts, and work that required multiple return visits to correct. The score reflects a contractor with a solid baseline reputation but a non-trivial tail of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR BULK REVIEWS: A cluster of 10 reviews all dated 2022-11-03 with identical formatting, extremely short text (2-5 words each), and all rated 5.0 stars shows strong signs of coordinated or inauthentic reviewing. Examples include 'They are not about the money.' (posted twice with identical text and date), 'Perfect guys', 'Perfect pricing', 'They are helpful.' These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly detailed and credible reviews date from 2013–2021. Reviews from 2024 and 2023 are present but sparse and mostly brief. A significant portion of the review corpus is older than 3 years, which limits confidence in current service quality.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS DOCUMENTED: Multiple 1-star reviews describe materially serious failures including: (1) a ceiling collapse caused by a plumber leaving a leak unaddressed; (2) a customer charged $5,800 with no itemized billing, unauthorized full credit card charge, and incomplete work; (3) a technician using a hammer to open a kitchen ceiling without identifying the root cause of a leak; (4) a tankless water heater installation missing required maintenance fittings with no follow-up response; (5) repeated no-shows and failure to return calls across multiple reviewers. These are not minor complaints and meaningfully depress the project completion and professionalism scores.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW TEXT: The review 'They are not about the money.' appears twice with the same date (2022-11-03), suggesting copy-paste or system duplication. Counted once for scoring purposes.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from 2002 to 2024. Reviews older than 5 years (pre-2020) were given reduced weight in scoring as they may not reflect current business practices or staffing.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review corpus (155 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the documented serious service failures — particularly around project completion and billing transparency — before hiring, and should seek recent references or reviews from the past 12 months to verify current service quality.

CPR Drain Cleaning has a large and long-running review history with a strong majority of positive experiences, particularly around responsiveness, fair pricing, and friendly technicians. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple decades — reveals recurring issues: jobs left incomplete and still charged for, dispatcher miscommunications leading to wrong crews or missed callbacks, at least one serious allegation of employee misconduct and intimidation, and a pattern of failing to follow through on estimates or return calls. Professionalism scores are pulled down by multiple credible accounts of rude office staff, hostile technicians, and poor communication under pressure. Project completion is similarly penalized by several explicit accounts of work not finished, charges levied for incomplete jobs, and warranty disputes. Pricing scores are moderately positive overall, with many reviewers noting CPR was significantly cheaper than competitors, though a few reviews describe being charged more than quoted or charged for no work done.

• Several reviews appear to be blank (no text, only a rating) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates (the 'basement flooded' review appearing in both 2023-06-10 and 2023-02-04 with nearly identical text) — only one was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• Two reviews with text 'I went well. CPR is a reliable company.' posted on consecutive dates (2016-11-21 and 2016-11-22) appear to be duplicate or suspicious entries — treated as one mention.
• Multiple 'unknown' reviews with 5-star ratings and no text were excluded from scoring — these may represent padding of the review count.
• A significant portion of reviews are more than 5 years old (many dating back to 2000–2017). While included for pattern analysis, recent reviews (2024–2025) were weighted more heavily and show a mixed-to-negative trend with several 1-star complaints.
• The 2016 review alleging theft of controlled medication and a hostile employee is a serious flag. The 2013 review alleging physical assault by a technician and intimidating return visit is also a serious flag. These are unverified but credible in detail and were factored into professionalism and project completion scores.
• Recency concern: Of the most recent 10 reviews (2024–2025), 4 are 1-star and 1 is 2-star — a notably higher negative rate than the historical average, suggesting possible service quality decline in recent years.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but users should weight the recent negative trend (2024–2025) heavily, as it suggests current service quality may be meaningfully lower than the historical average reflected in this score.

Muetzel Plumbing & Heating earns strong marks for project completion and technical experience, with numerous reviewers praising skilled diagnostics, thorough workmanship, and technicians who resolved problems that other companies could not. Professionalism scores are solid overall — punctuality, shoe covers, communication, and courteous technicians are frequently cited — but are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of rude or dismissive office/scheduling staff, no-shows, and missed appointments documented across multiple reviews spanning several years. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers describe costs as reasonable or fair, a substantial minority explicitly complain about unexplained charges, bait-and-switch pricing, per-task billing not disclosed upfront, travel charges, and rates described as significantly higher than competitors. The combination of strong field technicians but inconsistent office operations and opaque pricing creates a mixed but generally trustworthy service profile.

• 11 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• One review (1-star, 2024-10-12) appears to be unrelated to service quality — it complains about a driver's speed on the road and likely does not reflect a customer service experience; it was noted but given minimal weight.
• Pricing complaints are substantial and recurring across many years (2013–2024), suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents: undisclosed per-task billing, travel charges, and estimates significantly exceeding competitors are documented in at least 10 separate reviews.
• Office/scheduling staff rudeness and no-show/missed appointment complaints appear in at least 6 separate reviews across multiple years, indicating a persistent operational weakness distinct from field technician quality.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Named technicians (Steve, David, John, Nick, Josh, Sean, Shawn, Kevin, Alden, etc.) appear across many reviews, adding authenticity.
• Review corpus spans 2010–2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) remain largely positive for field work but continue to reflect pricing sensitivity.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of Muetzel's service profile — strong field technicians and project follow-through, offset by meaningful and recurring concerns about pricing transparency and office-level customer service.

Old Hilliard Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous technicians — particularly Adam, Anthony, and Justin. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and fair, with multiple reviewers noting they were among the lowest bids and honored original estimates. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: one detailed 1-star review documents multiple failed repairs on a bathroom renovation including a persistently leaking toilet after three attempts, misaligned fixtures, and alleged theft of copper pipes. Additional negative reviews cite complete failure to return calls, billing for no service rendered, a no-show on a $12,000 contracted job, and one reviewer who was overcharged and saved $950 via a second opinion. These failures are significant enough to meaningfully reduce scores across all dimensions, particularly project completion and professionalism, preventing this contractor from scoring in the high 80s or 90s despite the volume of positive feedback.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Mary Potter' review appears twice with nearly identical text (dated 2020-06-10 and 2020-04-15). This inflates positive review count and has been treated as a single data point.
• 18 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring. These blank 5-star reviews slightly inflate the perceived star average without providing usable evidence.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A notable number of very short, generic 5-star reviews ('Great service', 'Great people and great service', 'Very professional. Easy to schedule. Did a great job.') lack any specific detail. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious negative reviews (bathroom renovation failure, no-show on $12,000 job, billing for no service, failure to return calls) span 2011 through 2024, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. The detailed bathroom renovation complaint is from June 2024, which is within the past 12 months and carries elevated weight.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer documented a toilet that leaked from the base after THREE separate repair attempts. Another reviewer described needing to schedule three separate dates due to lack of appropriate equipment. A third reviewer had a toilet that leaked after installation and required a callback. These are direct, specific failures of core plumbing work.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2015, 2023 x2) report the company failing to return calls entirely — one waited all day through four calls with no response, one never received a callback after being billed for no service, and one was ghosted after two estimate communications. This is a recurring systemic issue.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2020) reports being quoted $600+ for a control board replacement that a second opinion resolved for $50 with a new ignitor, representing a potential $950 overcharge. One other reviewer noted the service call fee was 'a little on the high side' and another said they 'might find a lower price elsewhere.'

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented pattern of serious service failures, communication breakdowns, and at least one credible overcharging complaint that are not offset by the volume of generic positive reviews.

Rannebarger Home Maintenance has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise Dan's responsiveness, professionalism, and quality of workmanship across a wide range of services including gutter cleaning, power washing, and plumbing/sump pump work. Pricing is frequently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, which is a notable strength. However, a recurring and serious pattern of negative reviews — spanning from 2020 through 2024 — describes the company failing to follow through after initial contact: not delivering promised estimates, not completing all agreed-upon work, and going completely silent despite multiple follow-up attempts by customers. This pattern of non-completion and communication breakdown meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. The contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints about abandonment suggests inconsistent service delivery rather than uniform excellence.

• RECURRING COMPLETION FAILURE PATTERN: At least 4 reviews (Jan 2023 x2, Apr 2020, May 2024) explicitly describe the company failing to follow through — either not delivering promised estimates, not completing all agreed work, or going completely silent after initial contact or billing. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent negative review is from May 2024, indicating the follow-through problem has not been resolved over a 4+ year span. This pattern should be weighted heavily.
• POSSIBLE FAMILIARITY BIAS: One review (Nov 2018, Gerry Ringle) explicitly states 'I have known the owner of this business for many many years' — this review lacks specific job details and reads as a personal endorsement rather than a service review. It was discounted in scoring.
• REVIEW DATE SPREAD: The majority of positive reviews are from 2019–2022, with fewer recent positive reviews in 2023–2024. The two most recent reviews (2024) are split: one strongly positive, one strongly negative.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews are generally specific, varied in language, and reference distinct jobs and details. No coordinated fake review pattern identified, though the volume of generic praise warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large and detailed review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented, multi-year pattern of project abandonment and communication failures that directly contradicts the otherwise positive reputation.

John generally earns strong marks for completing jobs thoroughly, honoring callbacks (e.g., returning to fix a toilet seal), and demonstrating clear technical knowledge across a range of plumbing tasks. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by a 2024 no-show incident where the contractor failed to appear for a scheduled appointment and made no contact, which is a serious reliability concern. Pricing feedback is mixed — several reviewers praised affordability and fair quotes, while two reviewers explicitly flagged costs as high or inflated, particularly one who felt materials were marked up without the option to self-supply. Experience is consistently praised across multiple reviews, with customers noting knowledgeable explanations and quality workmanship. The most recent review (June 2024) is a negative one involving a no-show, which is weighted more heavily under recency rules and meaningfully impacts the professionalism dimension.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (June 2024) is a 1-star no-show complaint. All other reviews are from 2017–2023, meaning recent performance may have declined. This single recent negative review is given elevated weight.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Two reviews explicitly criticize pricing — one calling it 'a bit on the high side' and another alleging inflated material costs with no option to self-supply. This creates meaningful uncertainty in the pricing dimension.
• REVIEW SPREAD: The majority of positive reviews are from 2018–2020, which are 4–6 years old. Only two reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting confidence in current performance.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity. No suspicious repetition or identical phrasing was identified.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the age of most positive reviews and a notable 2024 no-show incident that raises current-day professionalism concerns.