Find Nearby Plumbers In Dayton, Ohio

Duncan Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual service, courteous technicians, and responsive office staff across 142 mentions. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 89 reviews, with technicians frequently praised for knowledge and skill. Project completion is solid at 82.5, though some reviews mention incomplete follow-ups or callbacks not honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (68.0 score), with 47 explicit mentions of high costs, aggressive task-based billing, and customer complaints about overcharging relative to market rates. The company's strength in service quality is substantially offset by widespread pricing concerns.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) explicitly cite excessive pricing, with customers reporting Duncan's quotes being 2-5x higher than competitors for identical work. This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• TASK-BASED BILLING CONCERN: Several detailed reviews describe aggressive 'per-task' pricing model that appears to inflate costs significantly. One customer paid $870/hour equivalent for a 30-minute diagnostic; another paid $1,252 for one hour of work.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While most reviews are highly positive, a subset (approximately 8-10 reviews) describe poor diagnostics, incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, or failure to identify root causes on first visit.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), showing recent strong performance. However, pricing complaints appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting this is a structural business practice rather than a recent issue.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK - LIMITED: While most reviews contain specific details and varied language, a small cluster of 3-4 reviews from 2025-06 use nearly identical phrasing ('Frank is the best,' 'amazing job,' 'excellent work'). However, the vast majority of reviews show authentic variation and specificity, so overall fake review risk is LOW.
• CALLBACK/FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: At least 3-4 reviews mention difficulty reaching the company for follow-up service or unresolved issues after initial visit, suggesting potential project completion gaps in specific cases.

This WW Score of 81.2 is highly reliable given the large sample size (227 reviews) and consistent data across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical trade-off: Duncan Plumbing excels in professionalism and expertise but is widely perceived as significantly overpriced relative to competitors. Customers should expect excellent service quality but should obtain multiple quotes and be prepared for costs substantially above market rates. The HIGH overall confidence reflects robust data, but prospective customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily in their decision-making.

Watters Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 81.2, driven by consistently high marks in professionalism, experience, and project completion. The company excels in punctuality, communication, and technical skill, with numerous customers praising specific technicians (Dylan, Cletus, Al, Brian, Jared) for their knowledge and courteous demeanor. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing high costs, unexpected charges, and payment disputes. Several significant negative reviews document serious issues including poor craftsmanship in new construction, unresponsive management, and miscommunication about pricing terms. While the majority of recent reviews (2024-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal persistent quality control and customer service inconsistencies.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024-2025) report overpricing, unexpected charges, and aggressive payment collection practices. One customer reported a $1,500 quote vs. competitor's $1,300 for identical work. Payment disputes and down-payment demands appear in at least 3 reviews.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Significant disparity between positive and negative reviews suggests inconsistent workmanship. A 5-year construction review (2024-06-09) documents multiple defects: missing insulation, failed backfill, exposed tubing, failed sump pump, failed lift station pump, and improper drain installation. Another construction review (2018-12-18) reports under-cabinet leaks, slow drains, and refusal to address issues.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Multiple reviews document poor follow-up and communication failures. One 2018 review reports 2-month delay with no callback after initial consultation. Another 2020 review reports cancellation miscommunication and emergency service denial due to staff hunting.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Several reviews indicate owner/management does not return calls or follow up on complaints, particularly regarding estimate delays and service issues.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text (only ratings of 5.0 or 4.0), reducing data quality slightly.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2008-2020) show more balanced criticism. This may reflect improved operations or selection bias in recent review submissions.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Reviews frequently praise specific technicians by name (Dylan, Cletus, Al, Brian, Jared, Phil, Rod) while criticizing unnamed technicians, suggesting significant performance variation across staff.

This WW Score of 81.2 is reliable for recent work (2024-2025) where professionalism and experience are consistently strong, but customers should be cautious about pricing expectations and should obtain detailed written quotes with clear payment terms before committing. The company's track record on complex projects and new construction work shows quality control concerns that warrant careful vetting and detailed contracts.

Joe Tuttle Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions with consistent praise for professionalism, skill, and reliability. All five reviews explicitly commend his professional attitude, knowledge, and workmanship. Project completion is well-supported with multiple mentions of completed jobs and long-term customer relationships spanning years. Pricing receives limited but positive mention in one review citing reasonable rates. The contractor shows exceptional experience with complex projects including full bathroom remodels completed in one day and diverse plumbing installations.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or complaints — this uniformity warrants caution, though the reviews do contain specific project details and long-term relationship evidence that suggests authenticity rather than fake reviews.
• Review dates span 2016–2024, with three reviews older than 3 years (2016, 2019, 2020). Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2021 and 2024). Recent review volume is limited.
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention — score should be treated as exploratory rather than definitive.
• Sample size of 5 reviews is small; confidence in overall WW Score is moderate rather than high despite strong individual dimension confidence.

This WW Score of 89.3 is moderately reliable and reflects genuinely positive performance, but is based on a small sample size (5 reviews) with limited recent activity and no negative feedback to balance the assessment; the score should be considered a strong indicator of quality but not conclusive without additional recent reviews.

All five reviews consistently praise professionalism, with explicit mentions of punctuality, clear communication, courteous behavior, and responsiveness — driving a high-confidence score in that dimension. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews, with references to fair pricing, no hidden charges, and cost-effectiveness, yielding a solid but moderately confident score. Project completion is addressed in four reviews, with jobs described as completed efficiently, thoroughly, and with follow-through, though no review explicitly mentions a callback or warranty-honored scenario beyond one warranty tip. Experience scores well across all five reviews, with reviewers noting knowledgeable explanations, problem-solving ability, and high-quality workmanship across a variety of plumbing and related tasks.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details, named individuals, and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Reviews span from 2021 to 2024. Two reviews are older than 12 months (2021 and 2022), and one is from 2023. Only one review (August 2024) falls within the most recent 12-month window. Recency weighting is limited.
• The contractor appears to operate under multiple names or with multiple team members (Eric, Tito, Gabe, Tito Jnr.) — this may reflect a small team or sole trader with helpers, but reviewers address different individuals, which is worth noting for consistency expectations.
• Sample size of only 5 reviews is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about long-term performance patterns.

This WW Score is based on a small but specific and detailed review set; it should be treated as a promising early indicator rather than a definitive assessment, and consumers are advised to seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and friendly attitudes across multiple technicians and owners (Aaron, Mike, Guillermo, Ron, and others), driving a strong but not perfect professionalism score. Pricing scores well overall — many reviewers explicitly cite reasonable, fair, or competitive pricing — but is tempered by several notable complaints: one reviewer was charged nearly $700 for a snake with no resolution, another documented being charged over double the market rate for HVAC maintenance, one experienced a mid-job price change from $285 to $388.50, and another felt labor charges for a warranty replacement were excessive. Project completion scores solidly given the large volume of reviews describing completed jobs, same-day or next-day service, and follow-through, but is reduced by a handful of reviews describing abandoned callbacks, a technician who left without hot water working, a dishwasher leveling issue that took two weeks to resolve, and a misdiagnosis case where a competitor fixed what A-1 could not. Experience scores high based on numerous explicit mentions of skill, technical knowledge, and problem-solving ability, including complex jobs like CIPP lining, tankless water heater repair, and leak detection under homes.

• A significant number of reviews (approximately 40) contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot contribute usable data to any dimension and were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies or technicians (e.g., A-1 Total Service Plumbing with Guillermo/Esteban/Osvaldo/Leo vs. Complete Plumbing with Aaron/Mike Torculas). This review set appears to aggregate reviews from at least two or possibly three distinct businesses. Scores reflect the combined pool but reliability is reduced because performance may vary significantly between entities.
• Multiple reviews for 'Complete Plumbing' reference owner Mike Torculas and span back to 2011, while others reference Aaron Petrossian as owner of Complete Plumbing — these may be two separate businesses operating under the same name in different regions.
• Pricing dimension has meaningful negative signal: at least 4 reviews explicitly describe overcharging, hidden fees, or price changes mid-job, which significantly tempers the otherwise positive pricing sentiment.
• One review (2025-03-11, 1-star) explicitly warns readers to get a second opinion on A-1 Total Service Plumbing recommendations, citing a misdiagnosis and an unnecessary $2,400 repair quote when a $400 hydrojet and simple obstruction removal solved the problem.
• One review (2025-05-10, 2-star) describes being charged nearly $700 for a snake that did not resolve the issue, followed by a $7,000 camera quote and then no response when requesting camera footage — suggesting possible upselling and poor follow-through.
• One review (2024-11-11, 1-star) and one review (2018-07-28, 1-star) cite rude phone/office staff, and one review (2022-08-17, 1-star) describes the owner being rude and late to an estimate appointment — a recurring pattern of customer service issues at the front-end of the business.
• One review (2017-07-17, 1-star) describes a technician breaking faucet handles and then becoming unreachable for follow-up repair — a project completion failure.
• One review (2021-03-03, 1-star) describes incomplete work and a system left without hot water after the technician departed.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are mixed, with both strong positives and notable negatives appearing in the same period.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but its reliability as a single-entity score is meaningfully reduced by the apparent aggregation of reviews from at least two distinct businesses; prospective customers should verify which specific company and technician they are engaging before relying on this score.

Apple Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with a large and consistent body of reviews praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and reliable follow-through on jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, clear communication, and respectful behavior in the home. Experience scores well too, with multiple reviewers highlighting skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship from named technicians like Dustin, Brandon, Ryan, Clay, Grant, and others. However, pricing is the most contested dimension — while many reviewers describe Apple as fair or competitive, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (including a 2-star and multiple 1-star reviews) explicitly cite labor charges that felt excessive, non-itemized billing, and prices that had risen sharply compared to prior visits, which pulls the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is generally strong but is tempered by a handful of serious complaints involving incomplete work, unresolved damage to property, and one instance of a no-show appointment with inadequate remediation offered.

• 12 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Pricing complaints are substantive and recurring: at least 4 reviews explicitly describe feeling overcharged, with labor rates cited as high as $250/hour and $329 for under one hour of work. This is a meaningful signal, not an outlier.
• One 1-star review (2024-05-15) alleges the technician was rude, that over half the agreed job was not completed, and that full payment was still demanded — a serious project completion and professionalism failure.
• One 1-star review (2022-10-11) describes property damage (epoxy floors) caused by a technician, followed by weeks of ignored calls — a significant accountability and follow-through failure.
• One 1-star review (2023-02-19) alleges the technician refused to assess an obvious leak, collected a $180 service fee, and then ghosted the customer — suggesting possible predatory service call practices.
• One 1-star review (2019-04-02) describes a faulty TPR valve installation (installed upside down) that was not corrected when brought to the company's attention, and the company quoted a higher-than-market price to fix their own error.
• One 1-star review (2021-01-22) describes a bill of $850 for a repair that cost roughly one-third of that amount the prior year, with the owner described as hostile and unwilling to justify the pricing.
• One 1-star review (2020-02-26) describes a misdiagnosis on two visits totaling $600 before a third-party correctly identified a simple o-ring failure.
• One 1-star review (2022-01-21) alleges Apple did not stand behind subcontracted work and deflected responsibility.
• One 1-star review (2023-06-03) describes a promised military discount being denied at billing time by the technician.
• One 1-star review (2022-02-20) describes a missed appointment with no meaningful compensation offered to a repeat customer who had spent over $1,000 with the company.
• The majority of reviews are 5-star, but the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and credible — they do not appear to be fake. The positive reviews also contain sufficient specificity (named technicians, described jobs) to be considered genuine.
• Review dates span from 2013 to June 2025. The bulk of reviews are from 2021 onward. Pricing complaints are concentrated in 2021–2025, suggesting labor rate increases may be a more recent and ongoing issue.
• No clear fake review patterns detected. Language varies sufficiently across positive reviews and named technicians appear consistently across multiple independent reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (125 total, 113 with usable data) spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions — however, the score should be interpreted with caution on pricing and accountability, as a credible and recurring pattern of overcharging complaints and unresolved service failures meaningfully offsets the otherwise strong positive record.