Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita, Kansas

West Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, technical expertise, and project completion capabilities, with consistently positive feedback on technician courtesy, responsiveness, and work quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about charges substantially exceeding market rates and competitor quotes—some customers report being quoted 2-4 times higher than comparable services. While most recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal a pattern of pricing concerns and occasional service failures. The company excels at same-day/next-day availability and knowledgeable technicians but struggles with transparent, competitive pricing.

• PRICING PATTERN: 28 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Negative pricing reviews consistently describe charges as 'ridiculous,' 'through the roof,' or 2-4x higher than competitor quotes. Examples: $750 for standard faucet install (market ~$260), $1,050 for in-warranty water heater (competitor $315), $2,500 for piping work (estimated $1,000 value). This is a material business model concern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 70% of reviews are from May 2025 and March 2025 (clustered dates). Many older reviews (2016-2023) contain pricing complaints and service failures. Recent reviews show predominantly 5-star ratings with minimal detail, suggesting possible review solicitation or selection bias.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text. These provide no usable data and inflate apparent satisfaction artificially.
• SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, flooded properties, drain clogs not resolved, and unprofessional behavior (e.g., technician leaving to pick up girlfriend, supervisor prioritizing profit over customer relationship). These are not isolated—at least 8 reviews describe significant failures.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Named technicians (James, Brandon, Tristan, Davien, etc.) receive consistent praise, but unnamed or different technicians receive criticism. This suggests quality variance by individual rather than company-wide consistency.
• SUPERVISOR CONDUCT: One detailed review (2023-10-22) describes supervisor explicitly stating 'PROFIT OVER PEOPLE' business model and refusing to credit diagnostic fees toward permanent repairs, creating customer friction.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2025-03-11 use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'quick') with minimal detail. One 2025-03-11 review appears to be a duplicate of an earlier review with added emoji stars.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable for assessing technical competence and professionalism (HIGH confidence based on 89+ mentions), but the overall score is significantly depressed by legitimate, well-documented pricing concerns (MODERATE confidence, 28 mentions). Customers should expect excellent workmanship and responsiveness but should obtain multiple quotes and negotiate aggressively on pricing, as West Plumbing's rates consistently exceed market rates by 50-300%. Recent review clustering and empty reviews reduce confidence in the most recent data; older reviews provide more balanced perspective.

Plumb Plumbing has a strong and well-documented track record of professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians across hundreds of reviews spanning over a decade, with the majority of customers praising on-time arrivals, clear communication, and friendly staff. Pricing is generally viewed as competitive and fair, particularly for large repipe jobs where their all-inclusive bids (covering drywall repair and permits) undercut competitors, though a meaningful minority of reviewers flagged overcharging, billing for unused parts, or charging for unresolved problems. Project completion scores are solid for large jobs like whole-house repiping, but are dragged down by a recurring pattern of unresolved issues requiring multiple return visits, warranty disputes, and at least one instance of an abandoned temporary repair. Experience scores reflect genuinely skilled core technicians praised by name across many reviews, offset by documented instances of inexperienced or inattentive plumbers causing new damage or failing to diagnose root causes. The overall picture is a company that performs well on standard and large-scale jobs but has inconsistent quality control at the individual technician level and notable customer service failures when complaints arise.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The negative review about 'Vicki' and the drywall scheduling failure appears verbatim or near-verbatim three times (2018-10-05, 2018-10-05, 2019-06-08), suggesting either a copy-paste error or a coordinated posting. These were counted as one unique complaint for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE POSITIVE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews about replacing natural gas lines after a Southwest Gas leak are nearly identical in wording (2019-07-15 and 2019-07-15), suggesting a duplicate submission. Counted once.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but included in total review count.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews date from 2013 to 2022. Only a small number of reviews are from 2023-2024, and those include three 1-star ratings with minimal or no text, which may indicate a recent decline in service quality or simply low review volume. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews across different years cite the same failure mode — management or office staff being unresponsive, condescending, or dismissive when complaints are raised. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• TECHNICIAN QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews explicitly note that inexperienced or inattentive technicians caused new damage (broken fixtures, incorrect installations, leaks introduced during repairs), which required additional visits and in some cases were billed to the customer rather than covered under warranty.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: At least three reviews describe the company refusing to honor what customers believed was warranty-covered work, citing narrow technical definitions to avoid liability. This is a recurring integrity concern.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence overall, but prospective customers should note that individual technician quality varies significantly and the company's complaint resolution process has been flagged as a consistent weakness across multiple independent reviews.

Mr. Rooter scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of recent reviews (2025) praising specific technicians — particularly Lucas — for being knowledgeable, courteous, prompt, and thorough. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as fully resolved, though a handful of older reviews cite incomplete work, a missed cap causing a basement flood, and warranty promises not honored. The pricing dimension is the most damaging: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly describe charges as excessive, hidden, or inconsistent with quoted amounts, including one reviewer alleging a jump from $400 to $1,200 and another citing nearly $1,400 for under three hours of work. The overall score is pulled down meaningfully by the pricing dimension, which has a clear and recurring pattern of negative feedback across the review history.

• HIGH VOLUME OF LUCAS-SPECIFIC REVIEWS: An unusually large number of recent 5-star reviews (2025) specifically name 'Lucas' with very similar praise patterns (knowledgeable, professional, went above and beyond). While some contain specific details suggesting authenticity, the concentration and similarity warrant caution. This may reflect a coordinated review push or employee incentive program.
• 9 REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT: Multiple reviews consist only of a star rating with no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS SPAN MULTIPLE YEARS (2013–2025): Negative pricing feedback is not isolated — it appears across 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2024, suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY BREACH REPORTED: One reviewer (2020) explicitly states the company promised a one-year warranty verbally before the job but refused to honor it after payment was collected.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2025, while most negative reviews are from 2014–2024. This may reflect genuine improvement or a recent review solicitation campaign — both interpretations are plausible.
• INCOMPLETE JOB NOTED: One 3-star review (2025-06-05) states the technician did not unclog the tub as expected and no receipt was provided, suggesting scope of work was not fully delivered.
• POST-JOB COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One 3-star review (2025-04-10) notes the crew left without notifying the customer or landlord, left contaminated gloves on-site, and warranty paperwork was never delivered.
• OLDER REVIEWS (PRE-2022): Reviews dated before 2022 were given reduced weight in scoring per recency rules. Several of the most negative reviews fall in this older category, but their pricing and completion concerns are corroborated by more recent reviews as well.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (67 total, 58 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall confidence, though the score should be interpreted with awareness that recent 5-star reviews are heavily concentrated around one technician and may not fully represent the company's typical service experience.

Plumbing Solutions has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technician knowledge across many named individuals including Jacob, Otto, Ed, Andres, Brian, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range of the dataset — consistently cite serious concerns: significantly inflated pricing (multiple reviewers report quotes 2–10x higher than competitors), failure to follow up or return calls, incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, and in several cases rude or threatening behavior from owners or staff. The pricing dimension is the weakest, dragged down by numerous credible, specific complaints about overcharging for simple jobs and lack of pricing transparency. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is tempered by documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved permits, and repairs that failed within days or weeks. Professionalism scores reflect a split picture: many technicians are praised warmly, but office and owner conduct generates a recurring pattern of serious complaints.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., two identical reviews for 'Jake was excellent' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Matt installed a new kitchen sink disposal' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'Enrique was exceptionally helpful' on 2025-05-19, two identical reviews for 'I am a contractor remodeling a bathroom' on 2025-06-02, two identical reviews for 'Another excellent experience with Plumbing Solutions' on 2025-06-03, two identical reviews for 'I never met him' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Very Professional, answered questions when asked' on 2025-05-26, two identical reviews for 'Otto Maldonado and his crew' on 2025-10-28, two identical reviews for 'Otto with PLUMBING SOLUTIONS' on 2025-06-23, two identical reviews for 'Highly recommend Plumbing Solutions. Jacob is punctual' on different dates). This pattern of duplicated 5-star reviews is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts and reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data but inflate the apparent star average.
• PRICING CONCERNS — CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations cite specific dollar amounts that appear grossly inflated compared to competitor quotes: $1,200 estimate for a garbage disposal and snake vs. $100 actual fix; $1,500+ estimate for a P-trap vs. $300–400 actual; $670 for a toilet reset with no new toilet; $520 for a $10 part and 15 minutes of work; $3,500 tankless water heater at 2x+ retail markup; $1,045 for 4 feet of pipe. These are not vague complaints — they are specific, detailed, and corroborated across many reviewers.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews across different years describe the owner or management as rude, threatening, or dismissive when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes being shouted at and threatened with a lien; another describes the owner threatening to 'come settle it in person'; another describes being told 'stop the dramatics and pay the bill.' This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• FOLLOW-UP AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: A recurring theme in negative reviews is failure to return calls, respond to messages, or follow through on scheduled appointments. This spans from 2012 through 2025, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE OR FAILED REPAIRS: Several reviews document repairs that failed within days or weeks, with the company then refusing to honor warranties or return to fix the issue without additional charges. One reviewer documents a $1,300 repair that did not fix the problem, followed by a demand for $435 more.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from 2005 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are given higher weight. Negative patterns (pricing, communication failures, incomplete work) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• AGGREGATION NOTE: This review set appears to aggregate reviews from multiple platforms and possibly multiple business entities operating under the 'Plumbing Solutions' name across different geographic regions (references to Smyrna, Dedham MA, Wichita, Nashville, Chicago, California, etc.). Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect more than one business.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, strong evidence of pricing manipulation complaints, recurring owner conduct issues, and the likelihood that this dataset aggregates reviews from multiple distinct business entities operating under the same or similar name.

Reddi Industries has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for punctuality, friendliness, and professional demeanor, which drives a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, multiple credible negative reviews describe serious issues including overcharging beyond agreed quotes, failure to clean up after work, entering private property without permission, and no-shows or scheduling failures — all of which meaningfully drag down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is a notable weak point, with several reviewers explicitly describing hidden charges, billing disputes, and deceptive fee practices, though some positive reviewers noted fair or reasonable pricing. Experience scores are generally positive, with many reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, but a few incidents of failed repairs and questionable diagnostics prevent a high score. The overall picture is a company with capable technicians but inconsistent quality control and recurring billing integrity concerns.

• 15 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Multiple credible negative reviews describe overcharging beyond agreed prices (at least 2 separate incidents), which is a serious pricing integrity concern.
• One review describes the company entering private property without permission, removing a fence, leaving heavy equipment, and not restoring the yard — a significant professionalism and legal concern.
• Multiple reviews describe scheduling failures: no-shows, technicians arriving hours early without notice, and failure to return calls for estimates across multiple attempts.
• One reviewer alleges the company fabricated a broken-blade story to upsell a more expensive service, and upon self-investigation found no blades in the line — a potential fraud indicator.
• One reviewer alleges the company attempted to double-bill both a tenant and a landlord for the same job.
• A billing dispute review (1-star) was later partially updated to note a ~$450 refund was issued, suggesting the overcharge complaint was validated by the company.
• Review dates span from 2017 to 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) were given reduced weight. The majority of recent 2025 reviews are positive, but negative patterns persist across multiple years.
• No strong fake review pattern detected — most positive reviews name specific technicians and describe specific situations, which adds credibility. However, a cluster of same-day 5-star no-text reviews (e.g., multiple on 2025-05-10, 2025-02-09, 2024-09-12) is mildly suspicious and those were excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable text data and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring and multi-year pattern of billing disputes, overcharging, and scheduling failures as material risks when considering this contractor.

Plumbing Specialists receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, with many reviewers praising friendly, courteous, and responsive technicians like Patrick, John, and others. However, several serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down all dimensions: one incident involved a plumber breaking a neighbor's P-trap and causing sewage flooding with the company denying responsibility; another involved an owner leaving a job incomplete and flooding a basement; and a third involved a technician arriving with non-functional equipment and leaving. Pricing feedback is mixed — several reviewers praised fair or honest pricing, while others noted overcharging on materials or a $135 estimate fee when work was not performed. Project completion is moderately strong overall but is significantly penalized by the abandoned-job and denied-liability incidents. Experience scores are similarly pulled down by the condo drain incident and the overly complicated estimate described in the 3-star review, despite many positive accounts of skilled, efficient work.

• 22 of 68 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be scored and were excluded from dimension analysis. Their presence inflates the apparent review count and may suggest padding of the review profile.
• The identical 1-star review submitted on consecutive dates (2022-05-25 and 2022-05-26) with word-for-word identical text is a likely duplicate submission by the same reviewer and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• A large cluster of reviews share the exact date of 2023-06-10 and 2022-06-10, which is atypical and may suggest batch-imported or backdated reviews. Confidence in those reviews is reduced.
• Most reviews with substantive detail are from 2022 or earlier. Only 4 reviews with usable text are from the past 12 months (2024–2025), limiting recency confidence.
• One serious unresolved liability incident (sewage flooding neighbor's unit, company denied responsibility) and one incomplete job that flooded a basement represent significant reputational and workmanship risks that are not offset by generic praise reviews.

The WW Score of 74.1 is based on a reasonably large number of mentions across all four dimensions and should be treated as a moderately reliable signal, but is tempered by the presence of blank reviews, suspected batch-dated entries, and at least two serious unresolved incidents that suggest meaningful quality and accountability risks.