Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita, Kansas

Brown's/Kime Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback on professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, respectful demeanor, communication, and clean-up — driving a solid score in that dimension. Pricing is frequently cited as fair or better than competitors, including one review noting savings of over $1,000 versus competing bids, supporting a strong price-friendly score. Project completion is the weakest dimension: while most jobs were completed promptly and thoroughly, one notable 1-star review describes a failed faucet repair that caused ceiling damage and a subsequent failure to follow through on promised remediation — a serious flag that meaningfully drags this score down. Experience scores are positive overall, with reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians, passed inspections, and skilled use of specialized equipment like a borescope, though the botched faucet repair tempers full confidence. The majority of reviews are from 2011–2020, with no reviews in the past 12 months, which limits the reliability of this score as a reflection of current service quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2011 and 2020. The most recent review is from November 2020. There are zero reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). This score may not reflect current service quality.
• NON-USABLE REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' and one states 'Did not use' — these three reviews were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• MIXED CONTRACTOR IDENTITY: Some reviews reference 'Brown's Plumbing' while others reference 'Kime Plumbing' and specific technicians like 'Bruce' and 'David.' It is possible these reviews represent two different companies or a business under different names/ownership at different times. Scores should be interpreted with this ambiguity in mind.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One 1-star review explicitly describes a repair that failed (leaking faucet caused ceiling damage to a recently renovated room) and a broken promise to remediate the damage. This is a significant quality and follow-through failure that has been factored into the project completion score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, specificity, and rating. One negative review is present. No strong indicators of coordinated fake reviews were identified, though the generic short reviews (e.g., 'Very prompt and took appx a little over an hour') offer limited signal.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the dimension scores are each backed by multiple mentions and HIGH confidence ratings, but the score's trustworthiness is significantly limited by the age of the review set (all reviews are 4–13 years old) and the ambiguity around whether all reviews refer to the same business entity under consistent ownership.

Dan's Plumbing receives strong praise across multiple dimensions, with reviewers consistently highlighting fair pricing, technical competence, and thorough cleanup after jobs. Several reviews specifically commend Dan's problem-solving ability, responsiveness in emergencies, and honest approach with no upsells. However, one notable 1-star review describes a serious communication failure — three unreturned calls over 8 days — which meaningfully tempers the professionalism score. The majority of substantive reviews are older than 3 years, with only two reviews from 2021 providing recent data, which limits confidence in the current state of the business.

• Three reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• One 1-star review with no text (2014) was also excluded due to no usable content.
• The 1-star review from 2020 describes a significant responsiveness failure (3 unreturned calls over 8 days), which directly contradicts positive claims about communication and responsiveness in other reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of substantive reviews are from 2013–2021, with only 2 reviews dated within the past 3 years. The most recent review is from November 2021. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several older positive reviews are brief and generic. Not flagged as fake but noted as low-detail.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the dimension scores are grounded in explicit review evidence, but the recency gap (no reviews since late 2021) and one credible communication complaint introduce meaningful uncertainty about the contractor's current service quality.

Creekmore Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise their fair pricing, responsiveness, and friendly service across multiple reviews spanning several years. However, the most recent review (July 2024) is a serious negative outlier describing a faulty installation of a recirculation pump check valve installed backwards, a slow callback response, and a refusal to make the situation right financially — all of which meaningfully drag down the project completion and experience scores. Professionalism scores well overall but is tempered by the 2024 account of the company changing their story and denying responsibility. Pricing is a clear strength, with multiple reviewers noting costs well below competitors, though the 2024 reviewer ended up paying for unnecessary parts and a second plumber to fix the original error. The score reflects a company with a historically solid reputation that has at least one documented recent failure in workmanship and accountability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2024-07-30) is a detailed 1-star complaint describing a confirmed installation error (check valve installed backwards), slow response time, and refusal to accept responsibility. This is the only review within the past 12 months and carries elevated weight under recency rules.
• HISTORICAL SKEW: Seven of nine reviews are from 2017 or earlier, with only one review from 2021 and one from 2024. The bulk of positive sentiment is 3–8 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and tone. The presence of a detailed negative review and a mixed-positive long-form review (2020) adds authenticity. No flag raised.
• INSTALLATION DEFECT DOCUMENTED: The 2024 reviewer had their complaint independently verified by a second plumber who confirmed the check valve was installed backwards. This is a concrete, corroborated workmanship failure, not merely a subjective complaint.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the positive dimensions are supported by multiple reviews but are predominantly older than 3 years, and the sole recent review documents a serious, independently verified workmanship and accountability failure that prospective customers should weigh heavily.

Jayhawk Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with multiple reviews praising workmanship and responsiveness. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion reliability and pricing practices. Two detailed negative reviews from 2017 and 2021 describe incomplete work requiring callbacks, poor communication, billing irregularities, and refusal to stand behind installations. While older positive reviews (2014–2015) are consistently strong, the pattern of issues in more recent years and the severity of the complaints—particularly around warranty/callback practices and billing transparency—substantially lower the overall score despite strong professionalism ratings.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2014–2015 (8+ years old). More recent reviews (2017, 2021) contain serious complaints about follow-through and billing.
• CALLBACK/WARRANTY ISSUE: Review from 2021-05-29 explicitly states company 'doesn't stand by their work' after poor installation caused damage. Refused to honor warranty or install customer-sourced replacement.
• BILLING IRREGULARITIES: Review from 2017-06-08 describes 12-month billing delay, non-itemized invoices, incorrect charges, and failure to credit payments—suggests systemic business management problems.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Review from 2017-06-27 reports difficulty reaching by phone and unreturned voicemails.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review from 2017-06-27 required two visits to complete a single job.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: Several 5-star reviews are generic in praise but lack detail about pricing or complex problem-solving, though they do not appear fabricated.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal bias (most positive reviews are 8+ years old) and serious, detailed complaints in recent years regarding warranty practices, billing, and follow-through that contradict the earlier positive pattern; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence rather than strong consensus.

Boyer Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, clean workmanship, and transparent billing. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a serious negative review describing incomplete work, property damage (basement flood), and a hostile owner response that included accusations and legal threats — a significant project completion and professionalism failure. An additional negative review describes an elderly customer being charged a $98 inspection fee without prior disclosure, raising concerns about pricing transparency and customer treatment. The bulk of substantive reviews are from 2012–2015, with only one review from the past 12 months (2023), limiting confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance. Several reviews consist of only a period, the word 'unknown', or a single generic phrase, which reduces the usable data pool.

• 6 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', '.', 'Very well.', 'Great service') — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no actionable evidence.
• The majority of substantive reviews are from 2012–2015. Only one review (December 2023) is within the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• One review (2017) describes a serious incident: incomplete work, a damaged drain pipe causing a basement flood, and the owner threatening legal action against the customer — this is a significant red flag for both project completion and professionalism.
• One review (2019) describes an undisclosed $98 inspection fee charged to an elderly customer who pleaded not to be charged — this is a pricing transparency and customer treatment concern.
• One review (2021) gives 1 star and implies the company is selective about job size, suggesting potential refusal of certain work — limited detail but noted.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2013–2016 are generic and lack specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in the positive score cluster, though they do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in most dimensions, but the heavy skew toward reviews older than 5–8 years, combined with three substantive negative reviews covering pricing, professionalism, and project completion failures, means this score should be treated as a historical baseline rather than a current performance indicator.

Mike and Rose Hill Plumbing receive consistent praise for punctuality, courteous demeanor, and professional conduct across multiple reviews spanning several years, which drives a solid professionalism score. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2017 significantly weighs down the project completion and pricing dimensions, describing a failed repair, a mid-job price change attempt, and a refund dispute with repeated hang-ups — all serious red flags. Pricing feedback is mixed: most reviewers found costs reasonable and fair, but the 2017 incident describes a bait-and-switch pricing tactic that cannot be ignored. Experience scores are generally positive, with reviewers noting clean workmanship, proper tools, and long industry tenure, but the failed drain repair that required the customer to fix it themselves tempers that score. The bulk of positive reviews are older than 5 years, with only one review from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in the current state of the business.

• Three reviews contain no usable text (blank or 'unknown' entries with 5-star ratings dated 2015-2016) — these appear to be placeholder or fake reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• One serious 1-star review (2017) describes price manipulation, incomplete/failed work, refusal to return for a callback, and a disputed refund — this is a significant integrity and project completion concern.
• The majority of substantive reviews are more than 5 years old (2012–2021), with only one review from the past 12 months (2023). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• Several older 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'The whole experience was great. No issues.' and 'Fine did all as asked') with no specific details, which reduces their evidentiary value.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small usable review base, a significant negative incident on record, three non-substantive placeholder reviews, and a review pool that is largely outdated — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.