Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita, Kansas

Pipe Dreams Plumbing demonstrates overwhelmingly strong performance across all four scored dimensions, supported by a large and detailed review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, shoe booties, cleanliness, and responsiveness — including the owner personally calling back within minutes. Project completion scores are high, with numerous reviews confirming same-day or next-day service, jobs finished on time or early, and the company honoring its work with follow-up visits. Experience is well-documented through technically complex jobs including slab leaks, main water line replacements, and multi-visit leak diagnostics, with reviewers and even a city inspector commenting on workmanship quality. Pricing scores slightly lower than other dimensions due to one explicit complaint about overcharging on labor (2-star review, Feb 2020) and one reviewer noting prices are 'on the higher side,' though the overwhelming majority describe pricing as fair, competitive, or the lowest among multiple quotes.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed 'Vinny' review (listing kitchen faucet, garbage disposal, water main, etc.) appears twice with nearly identical text — dated 2024-06-08 and 2024-02-23. This may indicate a duplicate submission or a copy-paste error, not necessarily a fake review, but it was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'Jason runs a great company. Always responsive to any questions, and very knowledgeable & honest!' appears twice — dated 2020-06-09 and 2019-09-26. Counted only once.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: Seven reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• SINGLE-WORD/MINIMAL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only a name initial ('E'), a very brief phrase ('Very well.', 'On time and professional.'), or a first-name mention with no detail. These were treated as low-signal and only contributed to dimensions where explicit evidence existed.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — PRICING (Feb 2020, 2-star): One reviewer explicitly complained about being charged substantially more than expected for a water heater replacement, citing $353 for 2 hours of journeyman labor and unresolved billing dispute. This was factored into the pricing score.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — CONTEXT FLAG (Aug 2020, 1-star): One review appears to be a business dispute response from the owner, not a customer review. It references an employee named Simon and an alleged extortion threat. This review was excluded from dimension scoring as it does not reflect a customer service experience.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of high-detail reviews are from 2021–2025, which is positive. However, a subset of reviews reference technicians named 'Josh,' 'George,' 'Travis,' and 'Scott' who do not appear in recent reviews, suggesting possible staff turnover or business evolution over the years. Older reviews (2010–2016) may reflect a different operational period.
• REFERRAL-ONLY REVIEWS: A notable pattern exists where Chance refers customers to other companies when he cannot help. Multiple 5-star reviews are written by customers who never actually received service. While this reflects strong integrity and character, these reviews were not counted toward project completion or experience scores.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Despite the high volume of 5-star reviews, the majority contain specific names, job details, dates, and unique narratives. The review corpus does not exhibit the hallmarks of coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and largely authentic review corpus spanning 14+ years, with the bulk of high-quality evidence concentrated in the past 3 years, making it a highly reliable indicator of consistent contractor performance — tempered only slightly by one substantiated pricing complaint and a small number of blank or minimal reviews.

Dutchman's Drain and Sewer demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with mentions of responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and courteous demeanor from named technicians Danny and Dennis. Pricing is a standout strength, explicitly highlighted in 6 of 6 reviews as competitive, reasonable, and affordable compared to competitors. Project completion is reliable with same-day emergency service, quick problem resolution, and thorough follow-through including cleanup. Technical expertise is evident through honest assessments, efficient diagnostics, and quality workmanship. The high WW Score reflects genuine customer satisfaction with repeat business and strong referral intent.

• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language, which could suggest selection bias or fake reviews. However, reviews span 8 years (2015–2023) with specific details (named technicians, specific problems, timeline details), which mitigates fake review concerns.
• Two reviews are older than 5 years (2015, 2018), which reduces recency weight. Most recent substantive review is from May 2023.
• Experience dimension has only 4 mentions (moderate confidence) compared to other dimensions, as most reviews focus on service delivery rather than technical skill depth.

This WW Score of 88.3 is highly reliable given consistent positive evidence across 6 reviews spanning 8 years with specific details and named personnel, though the uniformity of 5-star ratings and age of some reviews warrant acknowledgment that this represents a curated or satisfied customer base rather than a fully representative sample.

Reed Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and detailed review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness — including same-day and emergency callbacks. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting they paid less than expected or less than competitors quoted. Project completion is very strong overall, with the vast majority of jobs described as fully finished, on time, and with follow-through on callbacks; however, four negative reviews (no-show/ghosting, unanswered follow-up, unauthorized billing dispute, and a warranty callback that went unanswered) prevent a higher score. Experience and workmanship are praised extensively, with reviewers noting skilled diagnosis, quality repairs on complex jobs including full re-pipes, and technicians who explained their work clearly.

• 4 negative reviews identified: one no-show/ghosting (2025-03-11), one unanswered follow-up after photos sent (2021-10-25), one billing dispute with reportedly rude owner response (2019-02-21), and one unanswered warranty callback (2017-06-11). These are meaningful signals and prevent top-tier scores in professionalism and project completion.
• 3 reviews contain no usable text content (blank body, rating only): 2022-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2019-06-11. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• 1 review (2020-06-10) appears to reference a doctor ('Dr. Waggoner') and is clearly a misfiled review unrelated to Reed Plumbing. It was excluded entirely from scoring.
• 1 review (2020-06-24) contains no actionable detail ('Based on a recent contact re some potential work, I'm still saying 5 Stars'). Excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several reviews use generic praise without specifics (e.g., 'Reed plumbing is the best!!!!', 'World class!'). While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary weight and were treated conservatively.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022). Recency weighting was applied; the most recent negative review (no-show, March 2025) is given elevated weight as a current reliability signal.
• No strong pattern of fake reviews detected overall. The review corpus is large, varied in detail, mentions specific staff names (Marco, Pepe, Carlos, Raul, Daniel, Gonzalo, Luis, Jose, Nacho, Danny), and includes both positive and negative experiences — consistent with an authentic review profile.

This WW Score is based on 106 reviews with usable data spanning 2005–2025, with strong representation in the past 3 years, yielding HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score is highly reliable, though the recent no-show complaint and the historical billing dispute are credible red flags that prospective customers should weigh.

Custom Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and consistent body of reviews praising punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, proactive communication, and polite, respectful staff. Project completion scores are high but tempered by three notable negative reviews: one describing a job that was not completed correctly (ongoing leak after a weekend call), one involving property damage (cabinet gash) that the owner refused to adequately address, and one involving a billing/collections dispute. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting fair hourly rates, transparency about costs, senior and military discounts, and at least two documented instances of the company proactively issuing refunds for overcharges — a rare and trust-building practice. Experience scores are strong, with many reviewers praising technicians by name and highlighting their technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, though the failed faucet repair noted in one 1-star review prevents a higher ceiling.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of near-identical reviews appear to have been submitted twice — the 'Jace and Dillon hose bib' review (dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-22) and the 'Dylon remodel/washer-dryer' review (dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-20). These duplicates were counted only once each in dimension scoring.
• TWO BLANK/USELESS REVIEWS: One review contains only a rating with no text (2024-10-12), and one contains only 'unknown' (2015-12-03) and another 'unknown' (2014-06-09). These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 25-30%) are older than 3 years, with some dating back to 2006-2015. While the overall pattern is consistent, the most recent 12 months of reviews (2024-2025) remain strongly positive and are weighted more heavily in this score.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Three 1-star reviews raise legitimate concerns — a job left with an ongoing leak after a $250/hour weekend charge, a cabinet damaged by a technician with the owner refusing accountability, and a billing/collections dispute that negatively impacted a senior citizen's credit. These are substantive complaints, not outliers, and reflect a pattern of post-service dispute handling that warrants caution.
• POTENTIAL MILD FAKE REVIEW SIGNAL: The overwhelming volume of 5-star reviews with very similar praise language ('on time,' 'professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend') is noted. However, the reviews contain sufficient specificity — named technicians, described job types, unique details — to suggest they are largely genuine. No score reduction applied, but consumers should be aware of the pattern.
• ONE REVIEW (2017) appears to reference a different geographic market (Albuquerque) and a company founded in 1959 by the reviewer's father, which does not match the Redding, CA context of other reviews. This review may have been posted to the wrong business profile and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning many years and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the three substantive 1-star complaints — particularly regarding post-job dispute resolution and owner responsiveness to problems — before making a hiring decision.

Midwest Mechanical earns strong scores across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of reviews spanning multiple years with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and technician conduct. Project completion scores are high, with numerous reviewers noting same-day or next-day resolution, follow-through on callbacks, and jobs finished correctly — including one detailed account where a technician correctly diagnosed a repair that a competitor had misquoted as a full replacement. Pricing feedback is notably positive, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out fair, competitive, or lower-than-expected costs, and one standout account of the owner proactively steering a customer away from an unnecessarily expensive system. The one significant negative review — a 1-star from 2021 alleging technician rudeness and discriminatory behavior toward a queer customer, and failure to confirm the unit was working before leaving — is a serious flag that prevents a higher score in professionalism and project completion, even though it is an isolated older data point. Overall, the score reflects a well-established, consistently performing company with one credible and serious conduct complaint on record.

• ONE SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW (2021): A 1-star review alleges a technician was repeatedly rude, misgendered a customer's wife, displayed hostile body language toward pride flags, was reluctant to service the unit, and left without confirming the unit was functioning — which it was not. This is a credible, specific, and detailed complaint that stands in sharp contrast to all other reviews and has been factored into professionalism and project completion scores.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating and date). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 38 of 52) are dated within the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), which increases confidence in the current state of the business. Older reviews (2011–2020) are consistent in tone but weighted less heavily.
• MILD REPETITION PATTERN: A large number of reviews use similar positive language ('professional,' 'prompt,' 'friendly,' 'great service'). While this could suggest generic phrasing, the volume of named technicians (Lee, Angel, Alex, Lalo, Kevin, Shon), specific job details, and varied narrative structures across reviews suggests these are likely genuine. No fake review flag is raised, but the pattern is noted.
• ALL 5-STAR RATINGS (except one 4-star and one 1-star): The near-universal 5-star distribution is notable. While the detailed and specific nature of most reviews reduces fake review concern, the lack of any 2- or 3-star reviews across 52 submissions is statistically unusual and should be considered when interpreting the score.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews with strong recency, named technicians, and specific job details, making it moderately reliable — however, the single credible 1-star complaint alleging discriminatory technician behavior and incomplete work is a meaningful data point that prospective customers should read in full before making a hiring decision.

A&D Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an exceptionally large and detailed review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness — including same-day and weekend availability with no extra charge. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, with several reviewers noting that final bills matched or came in below estimates and that itemized quotes were provided. Project completion scores are high but are modestly tempered by three negative reviews: one citing a failed Rinnai installation that caused property damage, one alleging dishonest communication with a home warranty company, and one reporting that a callback was never returned. Experience is well-supported, with many reviewers describing skilled problem-solving, technical knowledge across diverse plumbing tasks, and quality workmanship on complex jobs including re-pipes, remodels, and emergency repairs.

• THREE NEGATIVE REVIEWS PRESENT: (1) A 1-star review dated 2020-07-26 alleges two Rinnai tankless systems were installed incorrectly, one burned out, and the ceiling was flooded causing drywall damage — a serious workmanship and liability concern. (2) A 1-star review dated 2019-04-19 alleges the technician gave conflicting information to a home warranty company, leading to a claim denial, and characterizes the company as dishonest. (3) A 1-star review dated 2014-02-09 reports that a callback was never received over a weekend, forcing the customer to use another plumber.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly detailed positive reviews are from 2011–2018. Reviews from 2019–2024 are fewer in number and some are less detailed. The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are generally positive but shorter and less specific, which slightly reduces confidence in current performance consistency.
• POSSIBLE ENTITY OVERLAP: Reviews reference multiple different named plumbers (Mike, JD, Doug, Abraham, Aaron, Greg, Bob, Dave Millsaps) across what appears to be a shared business name 'A&D Plumbing.' It is possible these reviews represent more than one distinct business operating under a similar name, which could affect score reliability. Scores should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Despite the large volume of positive reviews, the majority contain specific job details, named individuals, unique scenarios, and varied language. The review set does not exhibit the hallmarks of coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review dataset with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered HIGH confidence overall, but users should weigh the three negative reviews seriously — particularly the allegation of faulty Rinnai installation causing property damage — and note that the possible presence of multiple distinct businesses operating under the same name introduces some uncertainty about whether all reviews reflect a single contractor's current performance.