Find Nearby Plumbers In Middletown, Ohio

Elite Plumbing Services demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (89.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, courtesy, and communication. Project completion scores (88.1) reflect reliable follow-through and same-day/next-day service delivery. Experience ratings (86.7) highlight technical competence and problem-solving ability, though some reviews note pricing concerns. Pricing (81.3) is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviews citing high costs despite acknowledging fair value and quality work. The company benefits from extensive recent review data (predominantly 2024-2025), with strong consistency across hundreds of customer interactions.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews contain nearly identical phrasing and structure (e.g., 'Dominic has restored my faith in plumbers!' appears twice verbatim on 2024-11-10 and 2024-10-15). This suggests possible review duplication or fabrication.
• PRICING SENSITIVITY: While most reviews praise value, a notable minority (approximately 8-10 reviews) explicitly criticize pricing as 'overpriced' or 'high,' with some claiming better rates elsewhere. This creates a credibility tension that warrants caution.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Four 1-star reviews allege serious issues: unauthorized credit card charges, no-show appointments, incomplete work with aggressive behavior, and dishonest diagnostics. These are isolated but substantive complaints that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), which inflates confidence in current performance but may not reflect historical consistency. Older reviews (2013-2018) are also predominantly 5-star, suggesting either consistent excellence or selective review retention.
• MISSING INSURANCE DOCUMENTATION: One review (2024-04-16) explicitly states the company refuses to provide proof of liability insurance, claiming 'most plumbers will not.' This is a red flag for contractor credibility and legal protection.

This WW Score of 87.2 is highly reliable based on 401 reviews with consistent data across all dimensions and HIGH confidence levels. However, the score should be interpreted with caution due to suspected review duplication, isolated but serious negative complaints about billing and follow-up, and acknowledged pricing concerns that create a gap between perceived value and actual cost. The company appears genuinely competent and responsive, but potential customers should independently verify insurance coverage and clarify pricing before engagement.

Five Star Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and pricing. The company excels at punctuality, communication, and maintaining professional demeanor, with 52 reviews explicitly praising these attributes. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, with 28 mentions of transparent quotes and good value. Project completion shows solid performance with most jobs finished as promised, though a small number of reviews (3 negative cases from 2012-2018) document serious follow-through failures including no-shows and incomplete callbacks. Technical expertise is well-regarded with skilled workmanship noted across multiple complex jobs. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects reliable, professional service with minor concerns about consistency in project completion and customer follow-up.

• Three significant negative reviews (2012, 2017, 2018) document serious project completion failures: no-shows with no communication, unresolved drainage issues requiring multiple callbacks, and pricing disputes. These are older but represent material service failures.
• One 2020 review documents unprofessional behavior by owner Chris and staff (rudeness, failure to complete yard restoration, poor cleanup), contradicting the overwhelmingly positive characterization of professionalism elsewhere. This suggests inconsistency in service quality or staff behavior.
• Multiple reviews from 2024-2025 (past 12 months) show consistently perfect 5-star ratings with very similar positive language patterns (punctuality, professionalism, reasonable pricing, same-day service). While not definitively fake, the uniformity and recency concentration warrant noting.
• Four reviews contain no text content (empty review fields with 5-star ratings), limiting ability to verify claims.
• Recency bias present: 35 of 67 reviews (52%) are from June 2024 onward, with only 8 reviews from before 2020. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while older reviews show more variance including critical failures.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing current performance (past 12 months) but should be interpreted with caution regarding consistency: recent reviews show exceptional professionalism and pricing, but historical data reveals serious project completion and communication failures that suggest the company may have improved significantly or experienced inconsistent quality. The score reflects strong current reputation but does not fully capture the documented service failures from 2012-2018.

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.

Spartan Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and technician courtesy across 187 mentions. Project completion is solid at 79.5, though some reviews cite delays, rescheduling issues, and occasional follow-up problems. Experience scores well at 80.0 with frequent mentions of technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness (71.0), with numerous complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, vague estimates, and perceived overcharging relative to competitors. The company shows reliability but struggles with pricing transparency and value perception.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (15+) explicitly cite high pricing, unexpected charges, and lack of transparency. Several customers report being charged significantly more than competitors for identical work ($900 vs $240 for disposal replacement, $728 vs $350 for quote, $1081 vs $169 part cost). This is a material weakness.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: Approximately 12-15 reviews mention American Home Shield (AHS) assignments with concerning patterns—technicians allegedly denying coverage, misrepresenting issues as 'preexisting,' or refusing to perform warranty work. This suggests possible systemic issues with warranty claim handling.
• INCONSISTENT FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reviews (8+) report poor follow-up communication, unreturned calls, rescheduling without notice, or no-shows. This contradicts the strong professionalism score in other areas.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Several reviews describe damage caused during installation (broken tiles, chipped sinks, incorrect installations) and inadequate remediation. One detailed review describes spray foam misuse and poor workmanship.
• ESTIMATE TRANSPARENCY: At least 6 reviews cite refusal to provide phone estimates, vague itemization, or significant discrepancies between quoted and final prices. One review describes a $217 charge vs. $145 quoted.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older reviews (2014-2018) contain more substantive criticism. This may indicate review quality degradation or selection bias.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 30-40 reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are either blank (rating only, no text) or contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('Amazing service!!!', 'Great job', 'Highly recommend'). While not conclusive, the volume of low-detail 5-star reviews in recent months warrants caution.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Company receives both 'honest and fair' and 'dishonest and overcharging' labels from different customers, suggesting either inconsistent service delivery or significant customer perception gaps.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for professionalism and experience dimensions (both HIGH confidence with 140+ mentions each), but the pricing score of 71.0 should be weighted heavily in decision-making as it reflects genuine customer pain points across 68 substantive mentions. The company demonstrates strong technical competence and punctuality but has documented issues with pricing transparency and value delivery. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates and compare pricing with competitors before committing. Recent review quality concerns (high volume of blank/generic 5-star reviews) suggest some caution in interpreting the most recent ratings.

Mann Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most engagements, with many customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and skilled workmanship. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and follow-through, with multiple documented cases of abandoned work, failure to return calls, incomplete jobs, and unresolved service issues. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though some customers report unexpected charges. The presence of several serious negative reviews involving communication breakdowns and incomplete work substantially reduces overall confidence despite the high volume of positive feedback.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 18 reviews dated 2021-06-10 and 2022-06-10 with identical timestamps, minimal text, and all 5-star ratings suggest bulk/automated review generation. These reviews lack specificity and detail typical of genuine customer feedback.
• SERIOUS INCONSISTENCY: Multiple credible negative reviews (2024-11-11, 2023-07-31, 2022-05-20, 2021-04-22, 2019-05-11) document significant failures in project completion, communication, and follow-through by company leadership (John Kremp). These are detailed, specific complaints with clear consequences (financial loss, property damage, unfinished work).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention failure to respond to calls, texts, and emails, including from the company president. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document jobs left unfinished or abandoned mid-project, contradicting the company's stated commitment to completion.
• DRIVER CONDUCT: Two separate reviews (2025-03-11, 2020-10-12) document aggressive/reckless driving by company vehicle operators, suggesting potential culture or hiring issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2024 and 2023, indicating ongoing problems. The bulk of positive reviews cluster in 2021-2022 and earlier, with many lacking detail.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 78.2 reflects the high volume of positive reviews, the presence of credible, detailed negative reviews documenting serious failures in project completion and communication—particularly from recent dates (2024, 2023)—suggests the company's actual reliability is lower than the score indicates. The 18 suspicious bulk reviews inflate confidence artificially. Prospective customers should weight the specific negative reviews heavily, particularly those involving incomplete work and unresponsive leadership, and should establish clear contractual protections and communication protocols before engaging this company.

Pete the Plumber and associated operators (The Plumbing God, Bill, Mark, and others) earn strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and respectful conduct in the home. However, pricing is a recurring concern across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, with customers citing high hourly rates, unexpected truck charges, and costs that felt disproportionate to the work performed — this meaningfully drags the pricing score down. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and promptly, but there are several credible negative reviews describing incomplete work, return visits needed, and at least two cases where jobs were left unresolved or made worse. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, but is tempered by a handful of serious complaints about faulty installations and misdiagnoses that required correction by other plumbers.

• 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews from the 2024–2025 period use the nickname 'The Plumbing God' (Bill) while others reference 'Pete the Plumber' as a separate entity or team. It is unclear whether these are the same business or co-listed entities. This may inflate review volume and conflate two distinct service providers.
• One review (2025-05-01, 1-star) appears to be about a parking lot dispute unrelated to plumbing services. It was excluded from dimension scoring but noted as a professionalism flag.
• Pricing complaints are consistent and span multiple years (2014–2024), suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents. At least 7 independent reviewers explicitly flagged pricing as high or unfair.
• At least 5 negative reviews describe serious project completion failures: work not completed, leaks returning immediately after repair, a PRV installed incorrectly at 100 psi, a pressure tank left leaking and made worse on return visit, and a drain job that required a second company to redo.
• One negative review (2023-09-05) alleges the contractor became verbally abusive after a complaint. Another (2024-01-18) alleges the contractor threatened to send someone with COVID to the reviewer's home. These are serious conduct flags.
• One review (2023-12-15) alleges the contractor may not hold a valid Michigan plumbing license and stopped communicating when asked for a license number. This is an unverified but serious flag.
• Recency note: A significant portion of detailed reviews are from 2014–2018. While recent reviews (2024–2025) are present, many are text-free ratings. The most detailed and critical reviews span the full date range, suggesting long-standing mixed performance.
• No confirmed fake review pattern detected, though some short generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great work', 'Did great work', 'Great company!') lack specifics. These were scored conservatively or excluded from dimension counts.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, 138 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints, multiple credible project completion failures, and serious conduct allegations before hiring.