Find Nearby Plumbers In Dayton, Ohio

Dayton Sewer & Drain demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and project completion. The company consistently arrives on time, communicates clearly, and resolves drain and sewer issues effectively. Pricing is generally perceived as reasonable and fair, though one older review (2006) noted concern about labor charges for parts acquisition. Technical expertise is evident in diagnostic accuracy and root removal capabilities. The primary weakness is a single incident from 2015 involving unprofessional cleanup and an uncovered sewer cap, though the owner responded appropriately to the complaint.

• Two reviews (2015-10-02 and 2016-02-03) contain minimal or no substantive content ('.' and 'unknown'), reducing data quality but not indicating fake reviews.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (8 of 10 usable reviews predate 2022), limiting recency of performance assessment. Only 2 reviews from 2022 provide current-year data.
• One negative incident from 2015 (uncovered sewer cap, roots left in yard) suggests occasional lapses in professionalism, though owner demonstrated accountability.
• Pricing feedback is mixed: most reviews cite 'reasonable' pricing, but one 2006 review expressed concern about labor charges for parts replacement, indicating potential pricing inconsistency or communication gaps.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 10 substantive reviews with consistent positive feedback across all dimensions and HIGH confidence in three of four categories; however, the age of most reviews (pre-2022) means current performance may differ, and the 2015 incident suggests occasional quality control issues that warrant awareness.

Poseidon Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with pricing and technical experience being particular strengths — numerous reviewers explicitly noted prices were lower than competitors, and several praised the team's diagnostic and problem-solving skills on complex jobs like slab leaks, gas lines, and repiping. Professionalism scores are strong but tempered by a recurring pattern of no-shows and failure to call back, documented in at least 5 separate negative reviews spanning 2014–2015, which meaningfully drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. Project completion is the weakest dimension due to these documented instances of missed appointments, abandoned camera work, and a license suspension flag raised in one review. The bulk of reviews are older (2013–2018), with a smaller cluster of recent 2024 reviews that are largely positive, suggesting the business may have improved but the historical record cannot be ignored.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-09-12 and the review dated 2024-08-30 are word-for-word identical ('I had a terrible experience with a previous GC who did not fix a pipe leak...'). This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially duplicated review. One instance was excluded from scoring weight.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (2013-06-12 and 2013-05-10) are word-for-word identical ('David Miller is honest, hardworking, the perfect plumber...'). This suggests review manipulation or accidental duplication.
• LICENSE WARNING: One reviewer (2015-08-07, 1-star) explicitly claims Poseidon's license #982419 was suspended pending disciplinary action at the time of posting. This is a serious flag that could not be verified from review data alone but warrants independent verification before hiring.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviews (2014-04-07, 2015-02-05, 2015-01-24, 2015-05-01) describe David or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without calling, or showing up very late with poor excuses. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of reviews (approximately 55 of 72) are from 2013–2018, which is more than 6 years old. Only a small cluster of reviews exists from 2023–2024. Scores are weighted toward recent data where possible, but the overall picture is heavily influenced by older reviews.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews (both dated 2018-06-11) contain no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 5-STAR EXCEPT NEGATIVES: The review set is heavily polarized — nearly all reviews are 5-star with no 2, 3, or 4-star reviews (only one 4-star exists). While the negative reviews are credible and specific, the absence of mid-range ratings is a mild flag for potential platform selection bias.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously due to documented no-show incidents, a license suspension flag, and two confirmed duplicate reviews that suggest some degree of review manipulation; independent verification of the current license status and recent references is strongly recommended before hiring.

Five Star Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (84.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness. Project completion scores (83.1) reflect reliable job finishing and follow-through, though some negative reviews cite incomplete work or scheduling issues. Pricing (78.2) shows the most variability—while many customers praise fair rates and value, a notable subset reports overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, and estimates that don't match final bills. Experience (81.6) is consistently validated through technical competence and problem-solving, though a few reviews question diagnostic accuracy. The company operates across multiple locations with varying quality consistency.

• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY ACROSS LOCATIONS: Reviews span multiple geographic areas (San Antonio, San Diego, Florida, Oklahoma, etc.) with notably different service quality. Some locations show significantly more negative feedback than others, suggesting inconsistent management or training.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly mention overcharging, bait-and-switch pricing, estimates that don't match final invoices, and charges significantly higher than competitors for identical work. This is the most frequently cited complaint across the dataset.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, and poor responsiveness despite claims of 24-hour service. At least 12 reviews cite these issues.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER: Approximately 35 reviews rate 1-2 stars with specific complaints about dishonesty, rudeness, poor workmanship, or service failures. This represents ~7% of total reviews but suggests systemic issues beyond isolated incidents.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 25-30 reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('5 stars,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional and friendly,' minimal detail) with no substantive information. These cluster around specific dates (June 2025, June 2024, June 2023) suggesting possible bulk posting.
• HOME WARRANTY COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews (8+) specifically cite problems when company is dispatched through home warranty programs, with complaints about rudeness, overcharging, and poor communication with warranty companies.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: Several reviews document jobs requiring multiple visits, unfinished work, or problems recurring shortly after repair, suggesting quality control issues.
• STAFF CONDUCT ISSUES: A few reviews mention rude technicians, aggressive driving behavior, and unprofessional communication, though these are less frequent than other complaint categories.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for overall service quality, but CAUTION is warranted regarding pricing transparency and consistency across locations—the pricing dimension (78.2) likely understates customer dissatisfaction due to the high volume of specific overcharging complaints that may not be fully captured in the scoring methodology. Recent reviews (2024-2025) show more positive sentiment than older reviews (2016-2020), suggesting possible recent management improvements, but the pricing and communication issues remain persistent concerns that warrant direct inquiry before hiring.

Ed's Heating and Cooling demonstrates strong professionalism across nearly all reviews, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, communication, and respectful behavior. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished as promised, though some older reviews reveal installation defects discovered years later. Experience and technical skill are well-documented with high marks for problem-solving and workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting unexpected charges, hidden fees, misleading quotes, and what some perceive as overcharging—particularly for service calls and diagnostic fees. This pricing concern, combined with a handful of serious negative incidents (upselling unnecessary equipment, gas line safety issues, no-shows), tempers an otherwise strong reputation.

• PRICING PATTERN: 22 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent problem. Multiple customers report being quoted one price and charged significantly more, hidden diagnostic/service call fees, and perceived overcharging. This is the most frequently cited complaint after professionalism.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT (2013-07-24): Five gas line leaks discovered after initial installation in 2012, with no utility inspection completed. Customer felt lives were compromised. Company did not charge for corrections but offered no apology.
• INSTALLATION DEFECT PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2018-01-10, 2018-01-10, 2013-04-18) describe problems discovered years after installation (zoning system wired incorrectly, condensate pump clogged with plastic shards, improper LP gas conversion). Suggests quality control gaps in initial work.
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: 2023-11-08 review describes aggressive upselling of unnecessary HVAC replacement ($10,349 for 11-year-old unit; second opinion: $912 repair, 5-6 more years of life). Company charged $500 'restocking fee' not disclosed on estimate.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Negative reviews span 2010-2023, suggesting ongoing issues rather than isolated incidents. Some technicians excellent; others lack training or professionalism.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT (2014-07-07): Customer left work early, waited 2+ hours past appointment window with no call or show.
• RESPONSIVENESS GAPS: Multiple reviews mention unreturned calls or delayed callbacks (2013-05-12, 2011-02-03).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail, while detailed negative reviews are older (2012-2023). Recent reviews lack specificity and may reflect selection bias or review filtering.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for professionalism and project completion (HIGH confidence based on 98 and 67 mentions respectively), but the pricing dimension (MODERATE confidence, 22 mentions) significantly drags the overall score and reflects a genuine, documented weakness. The company excels in customer interaction and technical skill but has a troubling history of pricing surprises and occasional serious quality/safety lapses. Customers should expect professional service but should obtain detailed, written quotes and clarify all fees upfront before engaging.

McLean Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, courteous communication, and responsive service across 89 reviews. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 52 reviews, with customers praising knowledgeable workmanship and creative solutions. Project completion shows solid performance (79.5/100) across 67 reviews, though some callbacks and rescheduling issues are noted. Pricing receives a moderate score (78.0/100) based on 28 mentions—while many customers praise competitive rates and fair pricing, a notable subset found costs higher than expected or competitors, and some experienced invoice discrepancies. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with strong interpersonal skills and technical competence, tempered by occasional communication delays and pricing variability.

• Recency concern: Majority of reviews (approximately 70%) are from 2012–2014; only ~15 reviews from 2020 onward. Recent performance may differ from historical data.
• Communication inconsistency: Multiple reviews (2014–2016) cite delayed callbacks, slow email responses, and difficulty reaching the owner. This pattern appears to have improved in more recent reviews but remains a historical weakness.
• Pricing transparency issues: Several reviews (2014–2015) report invoice discrepancies, unexpected cost increases, or quotes that differed from final bills. Customers were sometimes unclear on labor vs. parts charges.
• No-show/cancellation pattern: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention missed appointments without notice or poor rescheduling (2014–2018). One 2016 review reports complete non-follow-up after estimate.
• Possible fake review pattern: Two reviews from 2018-09-01 are nearly identical in wording ('Professional, friendly, reasonably priced, and showed up within twenty-four hours. This will be my go-to company for any future plumbing problems.'), suggesting potential duplication or manipulation.
• Incomplete work: A few reviews mention callbacks needed or work not finished on first visit, though most were ultimately resolved satisfactorily.

This WW Score of 82.3 is reliable for understanding historical performance (2012–2016 era) but should be interpreted cautiously for current service expectations, given the age of most reviews and documented communication/scheduling issues in the 2014–2016 period. Recent reviews (2020+) are more positive and suggest improvements, but the sample size is small. Prospective customers should verify current responsiveness and pricing practices before committing.

Brian Hayden's plumbing business demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.3, driven primarily by consistent positive feedback on project completion, technical expertise, and fair pricing. However, professionalism scores are notably lower due to significant documented issues with punctuality, communication, and interpersonal conduct. While the majority of reviews (55+ out of 65) are highly positive and detail-rich, describing prompt service, quality workmanship, and reasonable pricing, three recent reviews (2020, 2018, 2017) reveal serious concerns: extreme tardiness (4+ hours late), failure to honor warranty work, and rude/condescending behavior. These negative reviews are detailed and credible, not generic complaints. The business appears to operate as a solo or very small operation, which may explain capacity constraints but does not excuse communication failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2006-2013). Only 3 reviews from 2018-2020 are recent, and all three are negative (ratings 1.0, 1.0, 3.0). This suggests potential service degradation or business decline in recent years.
• PROFESSIONALISM VOLATILITY: Stark contrast between older reviews praising punctuality and professionalism versus recent reviews documenting extreme tardiness (4.25 hours late), hanging up on customers, and rudeness. This pattern suggests either deteriorating service quality or inconsistent performance.
• GENERIC/VAGUE REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown' or single-word responses (e.g., 'The drain lines were cleared,' '.'), which provide no substantive data. These 8 reviews were counted but carry minimal evidentiary weight.
• CALLBACK/WARRANTY ISSUE: 2018 review explicitly states work was not fixed and customer was hung up on when requesting callback. This directly contradicts the project completion dimension and suggests follow-through failures.
• SOLO OPERATOR RISK: Multiple reviews reference 'he and his wife' or solo operation. Recent negative reviews may indicate burnout, capacity issues, or inability to maintain service standards as demand fluctuates.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with CAUTION due to severe recency bias: the score is heavily weighted toward 8-12 year old reviews, while the three most recent reviews (2018-2020) are uniformly negative and document serious professionalism failures. The HIGH overall confidence is mathematically justified by mention counts, but the business's current reliability is questionable. Prospective customers should prioritize the recent negative reviews over the historical positive ones and seek current references before engaging this contractor.