Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita, Kansas

Integrity Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particularly high marks for professionalism (87.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous staff. Pricing scores well (82.0) with many customers noting fair, transparent, and competitive rates. Project completion (85.5) reflects reliable follow-through, though a small number of reviews mention delayed callbacks or incomplete follow-up. Technical expertise (83.0) is consistently praised, with customers highlighting knowledgeable technicians and thorough diagnostics. The company's name genuinely reflects its operational values in the majority of reviews.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2025-06-08, 2025-06-05, and 2025-06-03 contain identical text (long, detailed narrative about managing renovation projects, mentioning Emily, James, Josh, Steve, Lyle by name). This repetition across three consecutive dates is highly suspicious and suggests potential review manipulation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 18 reviews contain only a 5.0 rating with no text content. While not necessarily fake, these provide no substantive data and inflate review count without evidence.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2024-2025 (past 12 months), with a sharp increase in volume in recent months. Earlier reviews (2006-2020) show more varied ratings (including 1-3 star reviews), while recent reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star. This pattern warrants caution.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS CONCENTRATED IN PAST: Most 1-star and 2-star reviews are from 2013-2022. Recent negative reviews (2024-2025) are rare, which could indicate either genuine improvement or selective review removal/suppression.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS LOCATIONS/OWNERS: Reviews reference different owners/technicians across different regions (Dave, James, Toby, Marc, Sean, etc.) and locations (Rancho Santa Margarita, Vallejo, Omaha, Utah, Brentwood, etc.), suggesting either multiple franchises under one name or significant data mixing. This complicates reliability assessment.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY IDENTITY: Some reviews reference 'Integrity Plumbing' as a single-owner operation (Dave, James, Toby), while others describe it as a larger company with multiple crews. Geographic and personnel inconsistencies suggest these may be different companies with the same name.

While the WW Score of 84.2 reflects genuinely positive feedback across most dimensions, the reliability is MODERATE-TO-HIGH rather than fully HIGH due to: (1) suspicious identical reviews in June 2025 suggesting potential manipulation, (2) 18 empty 5-star reviews providing no evidence, (3) dramatic recency bias with 60% of reviews from past 12 months and nearly all recent reviews being 5-star, and (4) apparent mixing of multiple businesses/locations under the same name. The score is most trustworthy for recent service quality (2024-2025) but should be viewed with caution regarding historical consistency. Customers should verify they are contacting the correct location/owner before booking.

Wichita Plumbing Company demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 38 mentions highlighting punctuality, courteous behavior, communication, and respectful conduct. Project completion is solid with 28 mentions confirming timely work, thorough follow-through, and customer satisfaction. Pricing receives a moderate score of 78 based on 22 mentions—while most reviews praise fair and reasonable rates, three negative reviews (from 2023 and earlier) cite pricing concerns, including one complaint about a $350 dishwasher installation estimate and another about vague bidding practices. Experience scores well at 85.5 with 19 mentions of quality workmanship and technical skill. The company's owner-operated model (Sean and Laura) is frequently cited as a differentiator.

• Three empty reviews (5-star ratings with no text) present in dataset—these provide no usable data and suggest possible review platform artifacts.
• One negative review from October 2023 alleges misdiagnosis of a plumbing issue leading to mold damage; this is a serious quality/experience concern but stands alone and is not corroborated by other reviews.
• Pricing dimension shows some inconsistency: majority of reviews (20+) praise affordability, but three reviews (2023 and earlier) express concern about high estimates or vague quoting practices. This suggests possible pricing communication or estimation process improvements over time.
• Most reviews are from 2022 and earlier (approximately 70% of dated reviews predate 2023), with a cluster of recent 5-star reviews from 2025. Recent reviews are uniformly positive with no critical feedback, which is atypical and warrants cautious interpretation.
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and realistic scenarios. However, the concentration of recent 5-star reviews with minimal critical balance is noted.

This WW Score of 84.2 is reliable and should be trusted as a fair assessment of Wichita Plumbing Company's typical performance. The score is based on 57 usable reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (19–38 mentions each), yielding HIGH confidence across the board. However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that pricing feedback is mixed (fair pricing praised in recent reviews but questioned in older reviews), and one serious quality complaint from 2023 exists without corroboration. The company's strengths in professionalism and project completion are well-documented and consistent.

Service First Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for courtesy, responsiveness, and communication across 18 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with mentions of complex projects (sewer lines, water heaters) and problem-solving ability. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though fewer reviews explicitly address cost. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by one detailed 1-star review from May 2023 describing multiple no-shows and broken commitments on a kitchen sink service, which substantially lowers confidence in follow-through despite other positive completion mentions. The overall score reflects strong fundamentals offset by a critical reliability failure.

• One detailed negative review (1-star, May 2023) describing repeated no-shows and failure to honor scheduled appointments directly contradicts the otherwise consistent positive pattern. This is a material reliability concern that cannot be ignored.
• Review dated 2023-04-27 contains only a period (.) with 5-star rating—this appears to be a placeholder or incomplete review with no substantive data.
• Most reviews cluster in March-April 2023 (older than 12 months). Only 4 reviews are from 2024, limiting recency assessment. Recent data is sparse.
• Several reviews use generic praise language ('great job', 'nice people') without specific details, though most include at least some concrete information about service type or behavior.

This score should be treated with moderate-to-high confidence for professionalism and experience dimensions, but project completion confidence is materially reduced by documented no-show incidents. The 84.2 score is reliable for general assessment but masks a significant reliability risk that prospective customers should investigate further before committing to time-sensitive work.

Williamson Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of prompt response, courteous demeanor, and efficient work across 15 reviews. Project completion is solid with 13 reviews confirming finished work, though one significant 2014-2015 incident involved multiple missed appointments without proper communication, which tempers this score. Pricing is viewed favorably in 8 reviews as reasonable and fair, though one reviewer noted higher costs. Technical expertise is well-regarded across 9 mentions, with customers praising skill level and problem-solving. The majority of reviews are older than 5 years (18 of 23), which limits recency confidence.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 78% of reviews are older than 5 years (dated 2015 or earlier). Only 1 review from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• SIGNIFICANT SERVICE FAILURE: One detailed 2015 review documents two consecutive missed appointments without advance notification, contradicting the otherwise consistent reliability narrative. This suggests occasional lapses in communication protocols.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only 'unknown' text with ratings, providing no usable data for scoring.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple reviews use similar phrasing ('smooth as butter,' 'very well done,' 'professional and courteous') but appear authentic with specific details and varied dates spanning 2010-2015.

This WW Score of 84.2 should be treated with caution due to severe recency bias—the dataset is dominated by reviews from 2010-2015, making it unreliable for assessing current service quality. While historical performance appears strong, the lack of recent feedback and one documented service failure in 2014-2015 suggest the score may not reflect present-day operations.

Daniel Cordova Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in professionalism (87.5) and technical expertise (86.5). The company excels at punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality, with extensive evidence across 78 and 72 mentions respectively. Project completion is solid at 84.0 based on 68 mentions, though some scheduling inconsistencies and follow-up issues were noted. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension at 73.0, with 22 mentions revealing customer concerns about higher costs relative to competitors and occasional pricing inconsistencies. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with room for improvement in pricing transparency and consistency.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews cite significant price variations for similar services (e.g., drain snaking quoted at $250 in May, $412-$490 in later service). This suggests inconsistent pricing practices or lack of standardized quotes.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Five 1-star reviews (2023-01-18, 2023-01-06, 2022-09-05, 2022-08-11, 2021-01-19, 2019-10-04) describe serious issues including cancellations, documentation refusal, property damage, and unprofessional owner behavior. These are credible, detailed complaints with specific dates and names.
• DOCUMENTATION & TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: One detailed 1-star review (2022-09-05) documents refusal to provide itemized invoices and pump receipts, with escalation to California State License Board. This suggests potential compliance and transparency problems.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE CONCERNS: Two reviews mention damage (2021-02-04 re: trash/cleanliness after $10k+ job; 2019-10-04 re: hole in restroom from roof work). Cleanup quality appears inconsistent.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews note appointment cancellations and rescheduling (2021-01-19, 2023-01-06), though most other reviews praise punctuality. This suggests operational inconsistency.
• ASSESSMENT FEE CRITICISM: Several reviews mention the $99-$100 diagnostic/assessment fee, with at least one customer (2023-01-06) viewing it as a barrier to getting competitive quotes.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2021-2024 (recent), with strong positive trend in 2024. Negative reviews cluster in 2021-2023, suggesting possible past issues that may have been addressed.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show specific details, varied experiences, named technicians, and realistic mix of praise and criticism.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 100 reviews with HIGH confidence in professionalism and experience dimensions. However, the score masks significant pricing concerns and documented service inconsistencies that warrant caution; customers should obtain multiple quotes and clarify pricing terms upfront before engaging this contractor.

J&M Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks across all four dimensions. Professionalism (85.0) is well-supported by 24 mentions highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and communication. Pricing (84.0) receives strong validation across 13 mentions emphasizing fair rates and value. Experience (87.0) is reinforced by 16 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, Project Completion (78.0) is the weakest dimension, with 18 mentions revealing two significant failures: one customer was left with a flooded basement after incomplete diagnostic work, and another experienced a no-show appointment with no callback. These serious incidents substantially lower confidence in follow-through reliability despite numerous positive completion reports.

• CRITICAL: Two severe project completion failures documented. Review from 2021-09-16 describes flooded basement left unresolved and incomplete diagnostic work; review from 2023-04-03 reports no-show appointment with no communication. These are not minor issues and directly contradict the majority positive narrative.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of reviews (24 of 37) are older than 2 years, with only 4 reviews from 2024. Most recent negative reviews (2023-08-28 and 2023-04-03) suggest ongoing professionalism issues. Recent 2024 reviews are uniformly positive, but sample size is small.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty review text fields (3 reviews with 5.0 ratings but no text) and several reviews with generic praise lacking specifics. However, most reviews contain sufficient detail to be credible.
• STAFF CONSISTENCY ISSUE: Reviews reference multiple staff members (Jamie, Jaime, John, Jason, Jeremy, Jose, Mike, Jamey) suggesting either high turnover or multiple locations/franchises. Quality and professionalism appear inconsistent across different staff members.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: 2024-08-28 review documents owner sending hostile text message to customer ('You're a very inconsiderate old lady...'), which is a serious red flag for company culture and owner judgment.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While the majority of reviews are positive and detailed, the presence of two documented project completion failures (flooded basement, no-show with no callback), an owner's documented hostile communication, and heavy weighting toward older reviews (65% over 2 years old) suggest the score may overstate current reliability. The company demonstrates strong technical skill and pricing fairness, but follow-through and professionalism consistency are genuine concerns that warrant direct verification before engaging for major projects.