Find Nearby Plumbers In Dayton, Ohio

Alexander Septic receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with multiple reviewers praising friendly, knowledgeable, and courteous staff. However, a significant 1-star review from October 2024 — the most recent review in the dataset — alleges that the company repeatedly charged full price while only pumping one of two septic tanks over several years, ultimately contributing to a full system replacement. This complaint directly and seriously impacts both the project completion and pricing dimensions, as it describes incomplete work and potential financial exploitation of a vulnerable customer. The pricing dimension is particularly uncertain, with one strongly negative and one implicitly positive data point pulling in opposite directions. The majority of positive reviews are from 2017–2018, making the 2024 complaint the most current and therefore most heavily weighted signal of recent business conduct.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of eight reviews are from 2017–2018, meaning most positive feedback is 6–7 years old. The most recent review (October 2024) is a serious 1-star complaint.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: The 2024 review alleges repeated incomplete septic pumping (only 1 of 2 tanks) while charging full price over multiple years, resulting in a full system replacement. This is a significant project completion and pricing integrity concern.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several older 5-star reviews (2018) use brief, non-specific language ('Fast and efficient service! The friendly staff is amazing!') with no job-specific detail, which may indicate low-reliability testimonials.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total limits statistical reliability. A single negative review has outsized impact on scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small and largely dated review pool; the most recent and specific review raises a serious unresolved allegation of incomplete work and overcharging, which meaningfully lowers confidence in current service quality.

All four reviews speak positively about Miller and Sons Plumbing across multiple dimensions, with consistent praise for fair pricing, courteous behavior, and satisfactory work completion. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension, with references to quick response times, courteous conduct, and clean-up after work. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair or lower than expected in three of four reviews, lending moderate confidence to that dimension. Project completion and experience are supported by references to completed installations and satisfied customers, though specifics on workmanship quality are limited. Scores are kept conservative given the small review pool and the age of most reviews.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score reliability is significantly limited by small sample size.
• Three of four reviews follow a very similar structure: quick response, fair price, satisfied customer. While not conclusive, the pattern warrants mild fake review awareness.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback of any kind — absence of criticism does not confirm quality and has not been treated as positive evidence.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review is within the past 3 years (2022). Two reviews are from 2020 and 2021, and one is from 2015. The 2015 review was given minimal weight. The overall picture may not reflect current performance.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, the majority of which are over 2 years old, making it LOW reliability — treat this score as a preliminary indicator only and seek more recent or numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

The WW Score of 78.3 reflects mixed performance across a very small sample of reviews. Project completion is the strongest dimension (88.0), with all three reviews confirming jobs were finished. Professionalism is notably weakened by one 2018 review describing an employee who refused basic courtesy (shoe coverings on white carpet), though the owner (Brad) responded professionally to the complaint. Pricing shows inconsistency: one review praised being under budget, another reported a 20% overbilling that required owner intervention to correct. Experience scores are supported by mentions of quick response, competitive pricing, and satisfactory work completion. However, the sample size is critically small (n=3) and two reviews are over 5 years old, limiting reliability.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for high-confidence scoring. Recommend collecting at least 10+ recent reviews.
• Two of three reviews are from 2017–2018 (5+ years old). Only one review from 2020. Recency is poor.
• One review (2018) describes a significant professionalism issue (employee refusing shoe coverings) and billing discrepancy (20% overcharge). Owner did correct the invoice, but this incident materially impacts professionalism and pricing scores.
• The 2017 review is generic praise with no specific details ('10/10 recommend') — lacks concrete evidence of service quality.
• Pricing dimension shows conflicting signals: one 'under budget' claim vs. one 'overbilled by 20%' claim. This volatility suggests inconsistent pricing practices.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (n=3), poor recency (2 reviews >5 years old), and conflicting evidence on pricing and professionalism. The score is directional only and should not be relied upon for major decisions without additional recent reviews.

R&R Plumbing shows a generally positive track record in professionalism, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, politeness, and responsive communication — including a follow-up call after service completion. Pricing and project completion are more mixed: two reviews explicitly praised fair and transparent pricing, but one detailed negative review described a job that ballooned from ~$300 to ~$700 and ultimately failed to resolve the problem, with the contractor unwilling to return without additional charges. That same negative review also raised serious concerns about workmanship quality, including poor pipe sizing decisions and obstructed furnace access, which pulls the experience score down meaningfully. Overall, the positive reviews are encouraging but lack specificity, and the one critical review is detailed and credible, warranting a conservative scoring approach.

• One review (2017-10-10) contains only a period as review text and a 4-star rating — this provides no usable data and was excluded from scoring.
• Most reviews are from 2014–2015, making them 9–11 years old. Only one review (2020) is within the past few years. Recency is a significant concern — business practices and staff may have changed substantially.
• The sample size of 5 usable reviews is very small. Scores should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• The negative review (2014-02-22) is notably detailed and specific, describing multiple technical failures, cost overruns, and refusal to remedy issues without additional charges — this is treated as high-credibility negative evidence.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (5 usable reviews), heavily outdated data (most reviews are from 2014–2015), and one substantive negative review that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive signals.

Professionalism is the most discussed dimension but is dragged down significantly by a detailed 2-star review from 2018 describing the plumber as unfriendly and offensive on two separate visits, which offsets the positive mentions of punctuality and friendliness in other reviews. Pricing is consistently described as competitive or fair across the reviews that mention it, supporting a solid but not exceptional score. Project completion is generally positive — jobs were finished, callbacks were honored, and cleanup was noted — though one review flagged a job taking longer than anticipated and another required a return visit to fix an improperly working sump pump. Experience scores moderately well given mentions of competent technical work across multiple plumbing types, though the dataset is small and heavily dated. The majority of reviews are from 2005–2019, with nothing in the past 12 months, which substantially limits the reliability of this score for current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 7 reviews are from 2005–2019. The most recent review is from January 2019, over 5 years ago. This score does not reflect current performance and should be treated with significant caution.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 7 reviews total. The WW Score is based on limited data and confidence is low overall despite some dimensions reaching HIGH confidence thresholds by mention count.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN FLAG: The 2018 review explicitly describes a deterioration in attitude compared to a prior experience with the same individual, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. This is a meaningful signal given it is the most recent review.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG: Two reviews (2006 and 2005) are written entirely in uppercase with no specific details about the job performed, pricing, or any concrete observations. These reviews contribute minimal usable signal and may be low-quality submissions.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, which is consistent with authentic customer feedback.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review set of only 7 reviews, all of which are between 5 and 19 years old, making it unsuitable as a current indicator of contractor performance without more recent data.

Stevenson Service Experts demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, the company is severely undermined by pervasive pricing concerns—customers repeatedly report being overcharged, quoted inflated prices, and pressured into unnecessary upgrades and expensive lease agreements. Project completion is inconsistent, with numerous complaints about missed appointments, poor communication, delayed callbacks, and unfinished work. The company's aggressive sales tactics, deceptive lease structures (particularly the 'Advantage' program), and documented instances of deliberate misdiagnosis to drive equipment replacement create a pattern of customer exploitation that significantly damages overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse pattern—over 50 reviews document overcharging, inflated quotes, and markups of 300-500% on parts. Multiple customers report being charged $1000+ for repairs that competitors completed for $200-400.
• CRITICAL: Predatory lease/financing practices—numerous reviews (particularly 2019-2024) describe the 'Advantage' program as deceptive. Customers report being charged $13,000+ termination fees, discovering they never owned equipment after paying 2-3x the purchase price, and finding 'lease' language only in fine print. This appears to be systematic corporate policy from parent company Service Experts.
• CRITICAL: Documented deliberate misdiagnosis—multiple independent reviews describe technicians deliberately disabling equipment (removing fuses, disconnecting wires, pulling apart components) to justify expensive replacements. Second opinions consistently revealed no actual problems or $200 fixes instead of $10,000+ replacements.
• HIGH: Communication breakdown—at least 25 reviews document repeated missed appointments, no-shows, failed callbacks, and customers having to call multiple times for updates. Pattern suggests systemic dispatch/management failure.
• HIGH: Sales pressure and bait-and-switch—technicians frequently arrive with salespeople; customers report being pressured into unnecessary upgrades, expensive add-ons, and equipment replacements while vulnerable (no heat/AC in extreme weather).
• MODERATE: Inconsistent quality by technician—reviews show stark contrast between individual technicians (Stan, Michael Mullins, Chris consistently praised; others criticized for incompetence or dishonesty). Suggests inadequate training/oversight.
• MODERATE: Suspicious review clustering—approximately 35 reviews from June 2025 and May 2025 are extremely generic, repetitive in phrasing ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'courteous'), lack specific details, and are all 5-star. Pattern suggests possible review manipulation or incentivized positive reviews.
• MODERATE: Warranty and contract disputes—multiple reviews describe warranty terms being misrepresented, refunds promised but never delivered, and management refusing to honor commitments.
• LOW: Recency bias—most negative reviews are from 2013-2024; recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, which may reflect either genuine improvement or review manipulation.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be trusted as a realistic assessment of a company with serious structural problems. While individual technicians often perform competent work and demonstrate professionalism, the company's systematic pricing abuse, predatory financing practices, documented deliberate misdiagnosis, and poor communication create substantial risk for customers. The score reflects that Stevenson Service Experts is fundamentally untrustworthy at the organizational level despite pockets of good service delivery. Customers should seek alternative providers.