Find Nearby Plumbers In Dayton, Ohio

Modern Plumbing has a large and long-standing review base that generally reflects a capable and responsive company, with many customers praising professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across plumbing, gas, and HVAC services. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and covering billing disputes, incomplete or botched work, poor communication, rude office staff, and at least one case where a company error caused significant property damage — prevents any dimension from scoring in the high range. Pricing received mixed signals: many reviewers praised fair rates, but others described being charged for no work done, double-billed for return visits, or given wildly inflated estimates. Project completion is similarly mixed, with strong examples of efficient same-day service alongside cases of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, and a year-long unresolved water heater installation. Professionalism scores were dragged down by recurring complaints about rude office staff, a no-show technician, and poor internal communication.

• 18 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to be duplicates or near-duplicates: the 1-star review dated 2019-06-11 and 2019-04-29 are word-for-word identical, suggesting either a duplicate submission or a copied review. This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• A significant number of 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'My go-to for plumbing needs.', 'Great place!', 'Very well.', 'Good work, easy to work with.') with no specific detail. While not conclusive of fake reviews, this pattern warrants caution and reduces confidence in the upper end of scores.
• Review date range spans from 2005 to 2025 — approximately 20 years. Reviews older than 3 years were given reduced weight. The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2018 onward.
• Negative reviews are spread across multiple years and cover distinct, specific incidents (billing disputes, property damage, rude staff, incomplete work), suggesting these are genuine complaints rather than coordinated attacks.
• One review (2024-06-09, 3-star) describes a company-admitted error that caused a home flood, with the company only partially compensating the customer and not covering their $2,200 insurance deductible. This is a significant project completion and professionalism concern.
• The company appears to operate across plumbing, HVAC, and gas services. Some reviews reference AC repair and generator installation. Scores reflect the full scope of services reviewed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 20 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted as reflecting a company with genuinely inconsistent service quality rather than a uniformly strong or weak performer — the 72 score reflects real variance, not a data gap.

Alpha Omega Plumbing and Septic has a large and mixed review base spanning multiple years and what appears to be at least two distinct service areas and possibly two different business entities operating under the same or similar name — one focused on septic/plumbing in the high desert/Southern California area and one focused on water heater warranty work in the San Jose/Bay Area (associated with 'Frank'). Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a recurring and serious pattern of unanswered calls, no-shows, and poor communication, particularly in the Frank/Bay Area reviews, with at least 8 reviews explicitly citing failure to return calls or missed appointments. Pricing feedback is mixed — several reviews praise competitive or fair pricing, while others cite overpricing or surprise charges, resulting in a below-average score. Project completion is moderate; many jobs were completed well and quickly, but there are credible accounts of incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, and one instance of damage caused during service. Experience scores are similarly mixed — many reviewers praised technical knowledge and skill, but several credible negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and a failure to identify basic issues.

• POSSIBLE MIXED ENTITY: Reviews appear to represent at least two distinct operational contexts — a septic/plumbing company in the Southern California/High Desert area and a Bay Area water heater warranty service associated with 'Frank.' Scores may reflect blended performance across different teams, locations, and service types, reducing reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40+) are dated prior to 2022, with many from 2012–2017. These older reviews may not reflect current service quality. More recent reviews (2024–2025) are weighted more heavily but represent a smaller share of total data.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN — NEGATIVE FLAG: At least 8 separate reviews explicitly describe Frank/Alpha Omega failing to return phone calls or respond to messages over multiple days or weeks. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from the 2024–2025 septic service cluster are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Good service and work,' 'Very good Work I recommend these company,' 'Great customer service and their staff are amazing'). While not conclusive, the volume of short, undetailed 5-star reviews with identical dates warrants caution.
• PRICING CONCERN: One review explicitly cited a $950 overcharge for septic pumping compared to a competitor. Another review described surprise charges added at time of payment. These are credible pricing integrity concerns.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One detailed review described Alpha Omega caving in a seepage tank during a certification inspection and then claiming replacement was needed — a second opinion contradicted this. Another review described an incomplete garbage disposal installation that caused subsequent water damage.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (97 total) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the likely blending of two distinct business entities or service teams, a significant proportion of older reviews, a documented pattern of non-responsiveness, and moderate suspicion of generic 5-star padding in recent reviews — treat this score as a cautious baseline rather than a definitive quality indicator.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, politeness, and thorough communication across multiple reviews. Project completion is well-supported with evidence of timely work and follow-through. However, pricing data is minimal with only two mentions, limiting confidence in that dimension. The experience dimension is supported by references to quality workmanship and problem-solving, though mentions are moderate. The overall score is tempered by the age of most reviews (majority from 2008–2013) and limited recent data.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 10 of 11 reviews are older than 10 years (2008–2013). Only 1 review from 2020. This significantly limits the relevance of the score to current service quality.
• MINIMAL USABLE DATA: 2 reviews are essentially empty or single-character responses (ratings only, no substantive text), reducing reliable data points.
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only 2 mentions of pricing across all reviews. One is vague ('very reasonable'), the other mentions a forgotten price. Insufficient to establish pricing confidence.
• PATTERN OBSERVATION: Multiple reviews use similar generic phrasing ('very professional,' 'very helpful,' 'very efficient') but this is not conclusive evidence of fake reviews given the age and context.

This score should be treated with caution due to the extreme age of the review dataset and minimal recent performance data; the contractor's current service quality may differ significantly from what these historical reviews suggest.

Schott Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across most dimensions, with particular strength in project completion and professionalism. Six reviews explicitly praise punctuality, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and competitive, though one 1-star review alleges charges 2-3 times the quoted amount, creating significant tension in the pricing dimension. Experience and workmanship are consistently praised across multiple reviews, with customers noting technical knowledge and quality work. The single negative review from 2015 raises serious concerns about pricing transparency and communication resolution, which materially impacts the overall score.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of seven reviews are older than 5 years (2015-2019). Only one review is from 2020. This limits confidence in current service quality.
• PRICING CONFLICT: Six reviews praise reasonable/competitive pricing, but one 1-star review alleges charges were 2-3 times the quoted amount with unresolved communication. This creates a material contradiction that cannot be reconciled.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINT: The 2015 negative review indicates the customer was unable to resolve the pricing dispute despite repeated contact attempts. No evidence of company response or resolution is present.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: All positive reviews are 5-star with detailed praise; the single negative review is 1-star. While not definitively fake, the stark polarity warrants caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to significant data recency issues (most reviews 5+ years old) and an unresolved pricing dispute that contradicts the majority positive feedback. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong historical performance, but the single serious complaint about pricing transparency and communication failure suggests current reliability may differ from past performance.

Lochard demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, politeness, and responsiveness. Technical expertise is evident in reviews mentioning knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. However, pricing feedback is limited to two mentions with mixed signals—one explicitly calling them competitive, another expressing disappointment about follow-through on estimates. Project completion shows concern: while most jobs are completed successfully, one review (2020) documents a significant failure to deliver promised estimates despite customer readiness to pay, suggesting inconsistent follow-through on callbacks and commitments. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects solid professionalism and experience tempered by limited pricing data and a notable project completion gap.

• One review from 2020 (4+ years old) documents a serious project completion failure—estimate not delivered after 3 weeks despite customer follow-up and cash-in-hand readiness. This is a material concern for reliability.
• Review from 2014 (10 years old) is significantly outdated and should carry minimal weight in current assessment.
• Only 5 total reviews limits statistical confidence; scoring is based on small sample size.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions—one positive, one negative—creating uncertainty about true pricing positioning.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and recency issues (2 reviews older than 3 years). The professionalism and experience scores are reasonably reliable, but the project completion concern from 2020 and limited pricing data reduce overall confidence. Additional recent reviews would significantly strengthen reliability.

Waker Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising quick diagnosis, efficient repairs, and follow-through on complex jobs. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by three older reviews (2017–2019) documenting serious communication failures, rudeness, and no-shows. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and fair, though one negative review alleges overcharging. The company shows a pattern of excellent service in recent years (2020+) but concerning lapses in customer service responsiveness in earlier years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three 1-star reviews are from 2017–2019 (4–6 years old), while five 5-star reviews are from 2020–2023. Recent performance appears significantly better than historical performance. Weight should favor recent reviews.
• PROFESSIONALISM SPLIT: Positive reviews emphasize politeness, communication, and cleanup; negative reviews cite rudeness, failure to call back, and poor phone responsiveness. This suggests inconsistency in service quality or staff behavior over time.
• PRICING CONCERN: One review alleges deliberate overcharging of a military family with repeated use of cheap parts. This is a serious allegation but isolated to one review and older (2019).
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity. Positive reviews include concrete examples (gas line installation, basement work, emergency gas leak response). Negative reviews provide specific complaints (no-show times, rude phone staff). Language is natural and not repetitive across reviews.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent reviews (2020+) are consistently positive and detailed, three older negative reviews citing serious professionalism issues create uncertainty about consistency. The company appears to have improved significantly, but the historical pattern of communication failures warrants caution. A score of 78.2 reflects strong technical capability offset by documented service inconsistencies.