Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita, Kansas

PD Plumbing shows a deeply mixed track record across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and reveals a stark split: several reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, while others describe scheduling failures, unanswered calls, and a technician who was clearly undertrained and had to repeatedly call his boss for guidance. Project completion is a significant concern — multiple reviews describe work that was not fully resolved, missed follow-up appointments, and in one case a customer fixing the problem themselves after paying hundreds of dollars; only older reviews describe fully satisfying outcomes. Pricing drew notable criticism, with one customer feeling gouged by charges for equipment the company already owned, undermining trust in billing transparency. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising specific technicians by name while others encountered clear skill deficiencies. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) trend negative, which is a meaningful warning sign about current service quality.

• Two reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' and '.') and were excluded from scoring — these may be placeholder or fake entries inflating the star rating.
• Several older reviews (2013–2015) are more than 9 years old and carry significantly reduced weight; the contractor's current performance appears materially worse based on recent reviews.
• The most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are both negative (1-star and 2-star), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• One review explicitly describes a technician calling his boss repeatedly during the job, indicating a potential training or staffing quality issue.
• A pattern of missed callbacks and hung-up calls described in the 2019 review raises concerns about customer service reliability that may still be present given the 2023 scheduling complaint.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low (13 total, 2 unusable), the most recent reviews are disproportionately negative, and several reviews are too old to reflect current business practices; prospective customers should weight the 2023–2024 reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

This contractor has a clearly split reputation: several older reviews (2013–2014) describe highly positive experiences with prompt, knowledgeable, and friendly technicians, while more recent reviews (2017–2019) reveal serious reliability failures including no-shows, missed callbacks, and one alarming allegation of a fraudulent carbon monoxide diagnosis used to upsell an unnecessary furnace replacement. Professionalism is the most heavily mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by three explicit complaints about scheduling failures and a potential scam. Project completion is similarly mixed — jobs that were started appear to have been completed well, but multiple customers never got past the scheduling stage. Pricing feedback is positive among those who received service, but the alleged $2,000 fraudulent upsell introduces a significant red flag. Experience scores moderately well based on positive technical feedback in earlier reviews, but the dishonest diagnosis allegation undermines confidence in that dimension.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2019) claims a technician falsely diagnosed a carbon monoxide leak to justify a $2,000+ furnace replacement. Two independent follow-up opinions found no carbon monoxide present. This is a significant red flag and has been weighted heavily in scoring.
• RELIABILITY PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2017, 2019) describe no-shows or failure to follow up on scheduled appointments, suggesting a systemic scheduling and communication problem.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2013–2014, which are more than 10 years old. The more recent reviews (2017–2019) skew negative. This contractor's current performance may be substantially worse than the older reviews suggest.
• ONE REVIEW ('removed and replaced', 2015) contains no usable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• REVIEW VOLUME IS LOW: Only 9 total reviews span nearly a decade, limiting statistical confidence across all dimensions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while confidence levels are technically MODERATE to HIGH based on mention counts, the presence of a serious fraud allegation, repeated no-show complaints, and the heavy age skew of positive reviews mean the score likely overstates current contractor quality.

Alan's Irrigation has a mixed but generally positive track record across a very small review set. Three of four reviewers praised his punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence with irrigation systems, and two explicitly noted fair or reasonable pricing. However, one detailed 1-star review from 2022 raises a significant concern: the reviewer alleged that Alan failed to complete agreed-upon work (not installing drip heads as promised), covered up the issue cosmetically, and still charged the full amount — a serious project completion and trust failure. This single negative review carries meaningful weight given the small sample size and its specificity. The majority of positive reviews are from 2019–2020, making recency a concern, with only one review from the past 12 months.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Three of four positive reviews are from 2019–2020, making them over 4 years old. Only one review (2024) is recent. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• The 1-star review (2022) contains specific, credible allegations of incomplete work and deceptive behavior (moving rocks to hide unfinished drip hose installation). This is a serious flag for project completion integrity.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 4 total reviews, a significant gap in recency (most reviews are 4+ years old), and one credible negative review alleging incomplete and deceptive work that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive feedback.

Singleterry Plumbing shows strong technical competence and fair pricing, but professionalism is severely compromised by a critical incident involving a 2.5-hour wait with no communication and dismissive customer treatment. Two positive reviews praise work quality and fair rates, but the 2015 negative review documents unprofessional behavior (laughing at a waiting customer, poor time management). The oldest reviews (2013, 2019) lack recent validation, and the small sample size (3 reviews) limits confidence in any dimension. The stark contrast between positive and negative experiences suggests inconsistent service delivery.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 2013–2019 with no recent data. Most reviews are 5+ years old, limiting current reliability assessment.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENT: 2015 review documents severe unprofessional behavior (laughing at customer, poor communication, disrespect for time). This single incident heavily weights the professionalism score downward.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Confidence in all dimensions is LIMITED due to insufficient mention counts (all ≤2 mentions per dimension).
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Positive reviews describe reliability and quality; negative review describes poor punctuality and dismissive attitude. Pattern suggests inconsistent service or possible changes in business practices over time.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (3 reviews), age of data (oldest is 9+ years), and conflicting evidence of service quality. The score reflects a serious professionalism concern documented in one review, but cannot be reliably generalized without more recent and numerous customer feedback.

Professionalism receives a moderate score driven by two positive mentions of courteous, prompt service but tempered by one review noting a delayed arrival and a separate complaint about lack of transparency. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two reviews explicitly calling out high or dishonest pricing and only one review praising reasonableness. Project completion is modestly positive — one reviewer was satisfied with the drain unclog outcome, but another declined service due to pricing concerns before work was completed, limiting confidence. Experience scores conservatively given only two relevant data points, both mildly positive but lacking detailed workmanship commentary.

• One review consists solely of a period ('.') with a 5-star rating and provides zero usable data — excluded from scoring.
• Three of the five reviews are from 2013–2015, making them over 8 years old. Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. Recency is very poor and the score may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2023 review is brief, generic, and includes a specific employee code reference, which may indicate a solicited or incentivized review. Treated with caution.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews (4 usable) severely limits reliability. WW Score should be interpreted with significant caution.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small review sample, predominantly outdated reviews (most from 2013–2018), one blank review, and a potentially solicited 5-star review — consumers should seek more current and detailed feedback before making a hiring decision.

D&D has a mixed track record across a small and largely outdated review set. Long-term customers speak positively about their knowledge and reliability, but a significant 1-star review from 2014 describes incomplete work, slow performance, and high pricing — which meaningfully drags down scores in project completion and pricing. Punctuality and follow-through were praised in one review but directly contradicted in another, creating genuine uncertainty. With only 4 reviews spanning over a decade, confidence in any dimension is limited and the WW Score should be interpreted cautiously.

• Only 4 reviews available — this is a very small sample and the WW Score has low statistical reliability.
• Three of the four reviews are older than 10 years (2011, 2013, 2014), making them largely irrelevant to current performance. Only one review (2023) is recent.
• The single recent review (2023) is brief and lacks specific detail, limiting its usefulness for scoring.
• The 1-star review explicitly describes abandoned/incomplete work and overpricing — this is a serious flag for project completion and pricing dimensions.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, rating, and detail.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to an extremely small review pool, three of four reviews being over a decade old, and a direct conflict between positive and negative accounts of project completion — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.