Find Nearby Plumbers In Youngstown, Ohio

Adam and Eve Plumbing receives generally positive marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers citing punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness — including same-day and emergency service. However, pricing is a notable weak point: several reviewers explicitly called out costs as high or unexpected, and one reviewer rated pricing an 'F', which meaningfully drags that dimension down. Project completion is mixed — most jobs were finished satisfactorily, but one reviewer spent over $15k across multiple visits without resolution, and one technician failed to show up entirely, both of which are serious completion failures. Experience scores moderately well, with reviewers generally satisfied with workmanship quality, though one reviewer noted incomplete finishing work (holes left in wall) and another had to call a second company to properly fix what Adam and Eve could not.

• 5 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', 'Very Well', 'Not applicable') and were excluded from dimension scoring — these inflate the raw review count without contributing evidence.
• Several reviews are significantly dated (2008–2015), which reduces their reliability for assessing current service quality. Only 4 reviews are from 2021 or later.
• The no-show incident (2012) and the $15k unresolved multi-visit job (2016) are serious red flags for project completion reliability, even if isolated.
• One reviewer noted the technician disconnected a washer hose and did not reconnect it or inform the customer — a meaningful quality-control concern.
• Recency warning: The majority of substantive reviews are more than 5 years old. The WW Score may not reflect current service quality accurately.

This score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a meaningful volume of substantive reviews, but is significantly undermined by the age of most reviews, several blank or unusable entries, and a few serious negative incidents that suggest inconsistency in both pricing transparency and job completion.

Komar Anchor Plumbing shows strong professionalism in punctuality, communication, and attitude across multiple reviews, with staff consistently described as reliable and courteous. However, a critical 1-star review from 2021 documents severe workmanship failures during a water heater installation—incorrect wire gauge causing fire hazard, incomplete grounding, and poor follow-up—which significantly impacts the experience and project completion scores. Three positive reviews praise timely service and problem resolution, but the safety-critical failure and lack of accountability in the negative review create substantial concern about consistency and technical competence. No pricing information was mentioned in any review.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: One review documents a water heater installation with wrong gauge wire that caused junction box smoking and fire hazard, plus incomplete grounding installation. This is a serious liability and workmanship failure.
• POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The negative review alleges the company may have deliberately botched the install to refer business to a friend's electrical company, though this is an accusation rather than confirmed fact.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: The 2019 review dismissively attacks the previous negative reviewer as a 'crybaby' with a 'historical crap box' rather than addressing the safety concerns, which appears defensive and unprofessional.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The critical safety failure occurred in 2021 (3+ years ago). No recent reviews confirm whether safety/quality issues have been resolved.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total; confidence is constrained by low mention counts across all dimensions.

This score should be treated with caution. While three recent positive reviews suggest good professionalism and service, a documented water heater installation failure creating fire hazard in 2021 raises serious concerns about technical competence and accountability that are not adequately offset by positive feedback. The lack of recent reviews and small sample size further limit confidence in the overall assessment.

All three reviews speak positively about Chris across multiple dimensions, highlighting his courtesy, professionalism, and quality of workmanship. Pricing is noted as reasonable in two reviews, with one reviewer specifically praising transparent and simple quoting. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting thorough follow-through including cleanup, extra work volunteered, and resolution of multiple issues across a large home. Experience is reflected in comments about solving numerous electrical problems and the reviewer's sense of being 'in good hands,' though the sample size is too small to assign high confidence to any dimension.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated as preliminary only.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback of any kind — while not conclusive, this warrants caution.
• The reviews do contain specific details (three-story house, GFI outlet, tree trimming, porch light installation) which reduces but does not eliminate concern about authenticity.
• One review is from 2023 (over 12 months old) — recency weighting slightly favors the two 2024 reviews.
• No reviews mention any negative experience, delay, or pricing concern — absence of criticism in a small sample is not strong evidence of consistent quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a very early-stage signal — meaningful patterns cannot be established until at least 8–10 reviews with varied detail are available.

Ben receives consistently strong praise across all reviewable dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly mentioned quality — punctuality, pleasant demeanor, and neat work appear across nearly every review. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting quick, thorough work and follow-through such as post-installation gas leak testing. Experience is moderately supported, with at least three reviews referencing technical knowledge, problem-solving, and skilled workmanship. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, meaning that dimension could not be scored and carries no weight in the final calculation. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool of only 5 reviews, all of which are older than 12 months.

• ALL 5 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 12 MONTHS — the most recent review is from November 2018, meaning there is no data from the past several years. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE — only 5 reviews total. The WW Score carries limited reliability regardless of individual dimension scores.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN — several reviews use similar superlative language ('great job', 'very professional', 'will definitely call again') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in authenticity. However, enough unique detail exists (gas leak test, valve recommendations, Angie's List context) to avoid a full fake review flag.
• PRICING DIMENSION — zero reviews mention cost, quotes, or value. This dimension is entirely unscored and should be treated as unknown.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW reliability due to a very small sample size of 5 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, and the complete absence of any pricing data.

Mr. Lawles has a generally positive reputation built over many years, with reviewers frequently praising his pleasant demeanor, responsiveness, and broad skill set across HVAC, plumbing, and electrical work. However, the review base is heavily dated — the vast majority of reviews are from 2010–2017, with nothing in recent years, which significantly limits confidence in current performance. Professionalism is tempered by at least one documented instance of forgetting to return a call and arriving 40 minutes late. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: one review explicitly notes a repair failed within a week due to using the wrong PVC connector, and another notes a coolant job was left intentionally incomplete pending a follow-up visit, with no invoice issued. Pricing drew mixed signals — one reviewer called prices 'excellent' while another described them as 'always expensive,' resulting in a conservative mid-range score.

• 5 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', 'N/A', 'Just great.', 'Very good service.') and could not be scored on any dimension — they were excluded from dimension scoring.
• One 1-star review (2011-07-07) contains no text whatsoever, providing no actionable data but suggesting at least one significantly dissatisfied customer.
• All reviews are older than 7 years as of 2024 — the most recent substantive review is from 2017. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Project completion concern: one reviewer explicitly noted a repair failed within one week due to incorrect materials (wrong PVC connector), indicating a quality control lapse.
• One review notes the contractor left cleaning work for the customer to complete after disassembly and inspection, suggesting incomplete job delivery.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the volume of content-free reviews (5 of 17) is notable and reduces the usable data pool significantly.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the complete absence of recent reviews (all data is 7–17 years old), a high proportion of content-free reviews that could not be scored, and at least two documented project completion failures that temper an otherwise positive sentiment trend.

Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension across all five reviews, with a mixed but generally positive picture — four reviews praise friendliness and helpfulness, while one review explicitly calls out dishonesty and poor customer service, pulling the score down meaningfully. Pricing feedback is limited to two reviews: one very positive (a free part and significant savings) and one very negative (a disputed $300 restocking fee), resulting in a conservative mid-range score. Project completion is referenced in three reviews in terms of helping customers finish projects and going above and beyond, though no reviews describe a full contracted job from start to finish. Experience is noted positively in two reviews, particularly the instance where staff demonstrated technical knowledge to help a customer repair an obsolete fixture, but the sample is too small to score with confidence.

• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent review is from January 2021, and three of five reviews are from 2014–2017. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• Only 5 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated as indicative only.
• One review (1-star, April 2017) directly contradicts the positive reviews on customer service and honesty, indicating real variance in customer experience rather than consistent quality.
• This appears to be a plumbing supply store or distributor, not a contractor or plumber performing installation work. Reviews reflect retail/counter service interactions, not contracted project work. Dimensions like project completion are being interpreted loosely given this context.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 5 reviews, all of which are over 3 years old, with no recent data to reflect current business performance.